Striped Bass Slot

[Ry609]

"The ASMFC Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board has adopted an emergency measure to reduce recreational striped bass landings. States will have until July 2 to cap their maximum recreational size limit at 31 inches. As a practical matter, that means a 28-31 inch slot everywhere on the coast...The motion passed by an overwhelming vote of 15-1...Only New Jersey opposed the measure."

[Broad Bill]

Did they say why? Current regulations seem to be working just fine, why fix something that's not broken. At first glance and like the fluke regulations with a 17"-17.99" ultra thin slot, a 28"- 31" slot in the striped Bass fishery is going to end up with a significantly higher level of discard mortality and disincent people from fishing on party boats and for higher boats who would simply like to take home a fresh meal for dinner.

As I said on the other thread about the disappearance of party boats, senseless regulations are going to be the death of our recreational sport.

[Ry609]

Did they say why? Current regulations seem to be working just fine, why fix something that's not broken. At first glance and like the fluke regulations with a 17"-17.99" ultra thin slot, a 28"- 31" slot in the striped Bass fishery is going to end up with a significantly higher level of discard mortality and disincent people from fishing on party boats and for higher boats who would simply like to take home a fresh meal for dinner.

As I said on the other thread about the disappearance of party boats, senseless regulations are going to be the death of our recreational sport.

I agree, seems crazy to me. I've never seen more stripers around then the present.

[pectoralfin]

I just was on the ASMFC Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board site trying to understand the thought process behind their decision to implement the slot. Maybe someone with more understanding of the process can explain the reasoning. Was this decided behind closed doors and pushed through the committee? Where is the data to support their decision?

I noticed on the sidebar an article by the Marine Fish Conservation Network. Reading through it I came across this.
"Perhaps more importantly though, folks have to understand that recreational discard mortality (those fish that die after release) is a huge part of overall fishing mortality. Right now, it’s more than half of all recreationally related fishing mortality. And, well, it accounts for way, WAY more mortality than commercial harvest."

[reason162]

This is long overdue, of course the one vote against the measure came from NJ.

[mikdel]

I beleive all the other states have commercial fisheries for striped bass also. I wonder if the commercials quotas are being cut also? Something smells fishy.

[reason162]

I beleive all the other states have commercial fisheries for striped bass also. I wonder if the commercials quotas are being cut also? Something smells fishy.

We just give our commercial quota to the rec side with "bonus tags."

And when it comes to stripers rec anglers cause over 80% of the mortality, so there's no question which sector needed to be reigned in.

[tautog]

You can walk on them but we need more cuts. More cuts will lead to more discard mortality which leads to a regulatory death spiral. Meanwhile whiting are still no bag limit, no size limit, and no closed season.

[hammer4reel]

While the Hudson strain is doing great . The Chesapeake stocks are hurt .

Once these fish move East for the next 5 months where it’s normally a 50/50 mix of Hudson /Chesapeake fish .
All the pressure will be on the Hudson strain then .

which could quickly hurt the great fishery we are seeing in the Raritan bay .

.

[dales529]

I have 2 questions:
1) If the current regulations (circle hooks and no gaffing) are still resulting in an 80% mortality rate by recreational fishermen as stated in previous posts how is this slot limit or has been discussed on many sites making SB a "game fish" Catch and release ONLY going to change the mortality discard rate???

2) OR is the mortality rate overestimated as it is with Fluke and other species?

[Broad Bill]

80% of landings I assume. It's a misleading statistic in fisheries with minimal possession limits like 1 fish for bass. You could fish all day, keep your one keeper, catch 19 more fish with one dying and fishing mortality will be 100% of landings while only 5% of catch. Any fishery with minimal possession limits are going to have high fish mortality rates to landings. It's a mathematical certainty compounded by more restrictive slot limits which is what's being adopted.

Curious how exactly marine fisheries know what percentage of recreational fish discarded actually die? For that matter, how do they arrive at a 25% natural mortality rate.

The southern stock in the Chesapeake has gotten crushed. If it's due to pollution and the negative impacts that's having on recruitment, which there's a good chance it is, introducing a paper thin slot between 28" - 31", no different than what they did with the fluke fishery last year, won't address the problem and will only compound it with higher discard mortality levels. How much of the southern stock problem is related to the harvest of bunker by Cooke Inc and their massive processing ships. Has that been thoroughly explored? Always thought management involved identifying problems before proposing solution. Why is the Hudson stock healthy and the Chesapeake not. Answer that question and then propose a solution which specifically addresses the problem as opposed to a coast wide marginal slot limit which is more speculative than fact based management.

[FASTEDDIE29]

This change comes in abruptly! At the start of Fluke season? Why? This is all related…….

[Capt Derek Fisher Price 3]

This is an absolute joke. There are much more bass around than 20 years ago. while the current regs are working or have worked to rebuild the stock in significant numbers, there are still certain year classes missing. The regs could be tweaked or adjusted to help this, but to go to a 3" slot limit coast wise is absolutely absurd. This was done behind closed doors, and without any public comment. While its "only 180 day" it can extend to a year or more. this will decimate the for-hire boats, tackle shops, marinas, ice sales, etc. etc. etc. what will be next, shut the entire fishing down completely, and not even allowing catch and release.

[Gerry Zagorski]

If there's a decline in Striped Bass populations you certainly don't see it here in NJ, our area is practically polluted with them. I think we've been good stewards of the fishery here. No commercial fishing allowed and Bunker reduction boats have been banned in our state waters. We've also taken recent measures with our regs to try and avoid the harvest of the larger breeders and our bonus program, which used to be for larger fish is now a slot between 24 and 28 inches. That and circle hooks and no gaffing to help with release mortality. I think we've done our part and I'm glad NJ voted against this.

The cause of all this is a result of the decline in the Chesapeake Bay fishery recruitment. This was caused in part by farm run off and lack of Bunker. What are the states along the Chesapeake doing about that? Omega who accounts for 70% of the bunker harvest are still allowed fish for them in the bay and farms continue to pollute and now we all have to suck it up??

I know this a highly migratory fishery and has to be managed regionally but time for the Feds to do some critical thinking here. If this is a Chesapeake problem, force change in the Chesapeake states and how about getting after the root causes?

Seems like there is no state sovereignty any longer. Look what recently happened with Fluke when the feds made a unilateral decision and no states were allowed a choice in tweaking their regulations this year. Now the same with Striped Bass? Why even have a state fisheries council.... The federal government knows what's best for you and they're on top of things :rolleyes:

[Duffman]

Such BS with whatever regs they decide to come up with. If you really want to save the stock, make a real effort to put an end to the rampant poaching going on. Burlap sacks full of dead bass getting into truck beds and car trunks and no enforcement in sight.

Instead of enforcing that they’d rather the fore hire guys to take it on the chin. Such a joke.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Such BS with whatever regs they decide to come up with. If you really want to save the stock, make a real effort to put an end to the rampant poaching going on. Burlap sacks full of dead bass getting into truck beds and car trunks and no enforcement in sight.

Instead of enforcing that they’d rather the fore hire guys to take it on the chin. Such a joke.

Enforcing the laws you already have in place, what a novel idea :D

Nah we need more laws we won't enforce because that's what we do and in the mean time we'll punish the law abiding people :rolleyes:

[hammer4reel]

If there's a decline in Striped Bass populations you certainly don't see it here in NJ, our area is practically polluted with them. I think we've been good stewards of the fishery here. No commercial fishing allowed and Bunker reduction boats have been banned in our state waters. We've also taken recent measures with our regs to try and avoid the harvest of the larger breeders and our bonus program, which used to be for larger fish is now a slot between 24 and 28 inches. That and circle hooks and no gaffing to help with release mortality. I think we've done our part and I'm glad NJ voted against this.

The cause of all this is a result of the decline in the Chesapeake Bay fishery recruitment. This was caused in part by farm run off and lack of Bunker. What are the states along the Chesapeake doing about that? Omega who accounts for 70% of the bunker harvest are still allowed fish for them in the bay and farms continue to pollute and now we all have to suck it up??

I know this a highly migratory fishery and has to be managed regionally but time for the Feds to do some critical thinking here. If this is a Chesapeake problem, force change in the Chesapeake states and how about getting after the root causes?

Seems like there is no state sovereignty any longer. Look what recently happened with Fluke when the feds made a unilateral decision and no states were allowed a choice in tweaking their regulations this year. Now the same with Striped Bass? Why even have a state fisheries council.... The federal government knows what's best for you and they're on top of things :rolleyes:


Just curious
How many bass you hearing being caught from cape may to shark river ?

Oceanside bass fishing sucks except a few days a season now
Very hit or miss both spring and fall .
Used to have three solid months in the spring and two more in the fall .

Another month as the Hudson fish move east Thry normally merge with the Chesapeake fish . The next five months without Chesapeake fish adding to the mix all the pressure from Long Island to Maine would be in the Hudson fish .

It’s not just about great fishing now . It’s to keep it
Without the Chesapeake fish rebuilding it won’t take long to hurt our fishery here .
If anything the states east of us saw the issue as it was those states asking for the size limit change .

[june181901]

Stripers Forever announced that they are quite pleased with the new regulation.

[Skolmann]

I have 2 questions:
1) If the current regulations (circle hooks and no gaffing) are still resulting in an 80% mortality rate by recreational fishermen as stated in previous posts how is this slot limit or has been discussed on many sites making SB a "game fish" Catch and release ONLY going to change the mortality discard rate???

2) OR is the mortality rate overestimated as it is with Fluke and other species?


In response to your first question, IMO I think with the increasing use of plugs with treble hooks on both the belly and rear cause just as much or greater harm to a bass. Since bass will eat a baitfish (therefore also a plug) from the head first, removing the rear treble and just keeping the belly treble would help OR swap out the rear treble for an inline single hook OR replace both the rear & belly trebles with single in lines.

[Skolmann]

Just curious
How many bass you hearing being caught from cape may to shark river ?

Oceanside bass fishing sucks except a few days a season now
Very hit or miss both spring and fall .
Used to have three solid months in the spring and two more in the fall .

Another month as the Hudson fish move east Thry normally merge with the Chesapeake fish . The next five months without Chesapeake fish adding to the mix all the pressure from Long Island to Maine would be in the Hudson fish .

It’s not just about great fishing now . It’s to keep it
Without the Chesapeake fish rebuilding it won’t take long to hurt our fishery here .
If anything the states east of us saw the issue as it was those states asking for the size limit change .

The only bass that I’ve heard being caught south of Manasquan to Cape May are being caught in the surf. Only exception is a for hire guy I know doing fairly decent out of Barnegat Light fishing the back waters (although the bass are not the size being caught in the Raritan).

I don’t often agree with you but on this I do.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Just curious
How many bass you hearing being caught from cape may to shark river ?

Oceanside bass fishing sucks except a few days a season now
Very hit or miss both spring and fall .
Used to have three solid months in the spring and two more in the fall .

Another month as the Hudson fish move east Thry normally merge with the Chesapeake fish . The next five months without Chesapeake fish adding to the mix all the pressure from Long Island to Maine would be in the Hudson fish .

It’s not just about great fishing now . It’s to keep it
Without the Chesapeake fish rebuilding it won’t take long to hurt our fishery here .
If anything the states east of us saw the issue as it was those states asking for the size limit change .

Seems to me not much has changed in the Ocean Fishery, you get shots here and there in the early spring and it turns on in the late spring if the migrating fish stay inshore.

I hear your point about the overall fishery now and what could happen if the Chesapeake stocks continue to decline. It is however at it's root a Chesapeake issue so how about dealing with those issues like Omega and farm run off?

As far as the states to our east, they want their share and I would have voted the same in their shoes. This is why I think states, within reason, should have some sort of latitude in their local waters to do what makes sense for them. I also think we have and continue to tightened our belts in NJ over the years. We have a lot more conservation minded people that have taken the lead in measures needed to manage the resource.

What do we get in return? A booming local fishery with more restrictive access and no say at all on what happens in our local waters. That really rubs me the wrong way.

[Broad Bill]

Young of the year index, a measure of striped bass recruitment, in the Chesapeake is at the lowest levels seen in 70 years. Environmental factors, agricultural and urban pollutants, is the leading culprit. Add to that Omega Protein, a foreign owned company, harvests over 50,000 metric tons of menhaden from the Chesapeake Bay every year. It's not just the impact that harvest level has on reduced forage for predator species, menhaden are the filter feeders of the bay which clean the water.

The new regs will without doubt increase discard mortality numbers and rates just like the ridiculous 17"-17.99" slot did in NJ with fluke.

So how exactly will the continued excessive harvest of nature's natural filter feeders and the bays primary forage source by Omega Protein, which will exacerbate the environmental problems the Chesapeake is and has been experiencing, coupled with new regulations which will cause more stripers to be killed through discard mortality help the fishery?

[dales529]

In response to your first question, IMO I think with the increasing use of plugs with treble hooks on both the belly and rear cause just as much or greater harm to a bass. Since bass will eat a baitfish (therefore also a plug) from the head first, removing the rear treble and just keeping the belly treble would help OR swap out the rear treble for an inline single hook OR replace both the rear & belly trebles with single in lines.

I couldn't agree more on the treble hooks but my question was more towards how does this change / reduce mortality? I am all for science and SB conservation / keeping the biomass strong but don't believe this achieves anything except another stranglehold on NJ for hire, PB's and recreational fishermen who have done everything asked and then some . MRIP and Mortality are NOT science based just a guess at best science available.

If SB mortality is so high and as many have posted there are all these boats out on a weekend and some less on weekdays but then there should be dead bass all over Raritan Bay!
Not seeing that! Even if they swim away after release and die later at an 80% of landings they cant all sink to the bottom or be forage for birds, crabs etc. You would see Bass floating dead in numbers after the fleet left daily or at least weekly no?

[hammer4reel]

Young of the year index, a measure of striped bass recruitment, in the Chesapeake is at the lowest levels seen in 70 years. Environmental factors, agricultural and urban pollutants, is the leading culprit. Add to that Omega Protein, a foreign owned company, harvests over 50,000 metric tons of menhaden from the Chesapeake Bay every year. It's not just the impact that harvest level has on reduced forage for predator species, menhaden are the filter feeders of the bay which clean the water.

The new regs will without doubt increase discard mortality numbers and rates just like the ridiculous 17"-17.99" slot did in NJ with fluke.

So how exactly will the continued excessive harvest of nature's natural filter feeders and the bays primary forage source by Omega Protein, which will exacerbate the environmental problems the Chesapeake is and has been experiencing, coupled with new regulations which will cause more stripers to be killed through discard mortality help the fishery?

While All those things impacted the fishery . The recreational fisherman destroyed that fishery .
For a decade you could go on the Virginia fishing web site and see thousands of huge females in the dock shots .
The fishing down there from Thanksgiving till the April 1st closure was unreal .
Many guys went there to catch huge fish that were stacked up .

Sadly way too many killed everything they caught , only select guys were practicing catch and release (many from Nj.) .


.

[hammer4reel]

Seems to me not much has changed in the Ocean Fishery, you get shots here and there in the early spring and it turns on in the late spring if the migrating fish stay inshore.

I hear your point about the overall fishery now and what could happen if the Chesapeake stocks continue to decline. It is however at it's root a Chesapeake issue so how about dealing with those issues like Omega and farm run off?

As far as the states to our east, they want their share and I would have voted the same in their shoes. This is why I think states, within reason, should have some sort of latitude in their local waters to do what makes sense for them. I also think we have and continue to tightened our belts in NJ over the years. We have a lot more conservation minded people that have taken the lead in measures needed to manage the resource.

What do we get in return? A booming local fishery with more restrictive access and no say at all on what happens in our local waters. That really rubs me the wrong way.


Apparently you were not fishing much Oceanside for bass .
We had a better quality fishery from the end of April through June than the bay experiences .

It’s been about 5 years since we had that type of fishing .
Was nothing to catch 40 fish on an afternoon trip

Now you see the Belmar and point boats running all the way to the bay to catch fish ,
They used to fish from the Ferris wheel to the rocks .

.

[dales529]

So why was there a HUGE Bass bite from Oct 2 to Nov 29 last year OCEAN side from Pt Pleasant a little north some days and a lot south other days. Reports are out there with screen shots of bait and bass blowing up. Blue Planet stuff
That's 2 months fall ocean side in 2022. Spring 2022 wasn't terrible either from Pt south. Not trying to start shyte but at some point it has to make sense and right now it does NOT

[Broad Bill]

While All those things impacted the fishery . The recreational fisherman destroyed that fishery .
For a decade you could go on the Virginia fishing web site and see thousands of huge females in the dock shots .
The fishing down there from Thanksgiving till the April 1st closure was unreal .
Many guys went there to catch huge fish that were stacked up .

Sadly way too many killed everything they caught , only select guys were practicing catch and release (many from Nj.)

.

If the regulations allowed it, the regulations are to blame not anglers. I release just about every fish I catch salt or fresh water and would never harvest larger ones. But that's my personal choice and anglers are allowed to keep what the regulations allow whether you agree with that philosophy or not. Until fisheries management learns you need to protect breeders in every fishery with today's technology, both commercial and recreational, no stock is sustainable. The powers to be let a robust fishery get to the point where emergency measures needed in their opinion to be adopted, that alone should tell you who's at fault.

[hammer4reel]

So why was there a HUGE Bass bite from Oct 2 to Nov 29 last year OCEAN side from Pt Pleasant a little north some days and a lot south other days. Reports are out there with screen shots of bait and bass blowing up. Blue Planet stuff
That's 2 months fall ocean side in 2022. Spring 2022 wasn't terrible either from Pt south. Not trying to start shyte but at some point it has to make sense and right now it does NOT

Dave that wasn’t the daily bite we used to have , it was hit and miss .
Great one day , a desert the next day .
Spring was the same , days there was miles of bunker with nothing on it .

Used to catch fish on every pod ..
.

[tautog]

How would a slot help the Chesapeake when the issues there are pollution, bunker reduction and invasive blue catfish? Surf fisherman often sink 3 treble hooks into fish, take 5 minutes worth of pictures, and drag them through the sand, but those are the same guys who want catch and release only..*LOL*.

[mikdel]

80% of landings I assume. It's a misleading statistic in fisheries with minimal possession limits like 1 fish for bass. You could fish all day, keep your one keeper, catch 19 more fish with one dying and fishing mortality will be 100% of landings while only 5% of catch. Any fishery with minimal possession limits are going to have high fish mortality rates to landings. It's a mathematical certainty compounded by more restrictive slot limits which is what's being adopted.

Curious how exactly marine fisheries know what percentage of recreational fish discarded actually die? For that matter, how do they arrive at a 25% natural mortality rate.

The southern stock in the Chesapeake has gotten crushed. If it's due to pollution and the negative impacts that's having on recruitment, which there's a good chance it is, introducing a paper thin slot between 28" - 31", no different than what they did with the fluke fishery last year, won't address the problem and will only compound it with higher discard mortality levels. How much of the southern stock problem is related to the harvest of bunker by Cooke Inc and their massive processing ships. Has that been thoroughly explored? Always thought management involved identifying problems before proposing solution. Why is the Hudson stock healthy and the Chesapeake not. Answer that question and then propose a solution which specifically addresses the problem as opposed to a coast wide marginal slot limit which is more speculative than fact based management.

I would think tt\he fish mortality release rate for fluke would go down quite a bit with the 17" size introduction. States like Md. have different regs at certain times of year and differing sizes also. In the summer people still fish for striper at conowingo dam I think its illegal then. The stress from the warm water is too much for them after being caught with floaters seen all the time. I think nj has reasonable regs and with a drop in size in size the discard mortality rate can go up Alot of good reasons for the southern decline in stripers have been mentioned on here.

[mikdel]

Such BS with whatever regs they decide to come up with. If you really want to save the stock, make a real effort to put an end to the rampant poaching going on. Burlap sacks full of dead bass getting into truck beds and car trunks and no enforcement in sight.

Instead of enforcing that they’d rather the fore hire guys to take it on the chin. Such a joke.

Talking with a friend today about things you mention. There are not nearly enough fish wardens in nj to enforce all the different rules and regs. He mentioned a saltwater fishing licence for nj would probably help to hire more enforcement people. I know some would bitch about this. I agree with the idea.
I think it would be worth it at a reasonable cost for a license. Uh oh incoming duck

[togzilla]

So when do these regulations actually go into effect in NJ? The original post said that States have up until July 2nd to implement the new slot limit.

[Broad Bill]

I would think tt\he fish mortality release rate for fluke would go down quite a bit with the 17" size introduction.

I can't prove it with data but it's always been my belief the narrower a slot, the higher the discard level as you have to cull through more fish to harvest one in that narrow slot range. Wider range, different story.

A slot is used to protect targeted age classes and protect breeders. 28"-31" for bass, in my opinion, will result in more bass being killed. It will protect fish that make it through to 31" while it's in place but I believe a lot more fish will be killed in the process. That's one concern but more so I don't think the true problem plaguing the Chesapeake stock is being addressed. Remove Omega Protein for three years from all netting in the bay and assess the impact on water quality, menhaden populations and in the case of bass the impact on young of the year indexes after those three years and set course accordingly. Problem is, like everything else, there's too much money changing hands for that to happen so everyone else suffers.

To my earlier point about fluke, if NJ went to a 15"-17.99 slot last year, I'd agree with you discard mortality would decline. 17"-17.99", not so sure. And the way this entire process works is at a 15"-17.99" slot, the season would have been reduced, possession limit possibly reduced and NJ with how MRIP works would've paid the price this year. It's just the way the models work unfortunately. Instead of protecting breeders and bolstering recruitment, fisheries management does the exact opposite.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Talking with a friend today about things you mention. There are not nearly enough fish wardens in nj to enforce all the different rules and regs. He mentioned a saltwater fishing licence for nj would probably help to hire more enforcement people. I know some would bitch about this. I agree with the idea.
I think it would be worth it at a reasonable cost for a license. Uh oh incoming duck

Hmmm. Not sure about you but I happen to think a state that taxes its people to the extent NJ does has money to do whatever they think is priority. Enforcing regulations is simply not one of their priorities and throwing money at it is not going to change that mentality. This is not about money, it’s about desire.

[Broad Bill]

Talking with a friend today about things you mention. There are not nearly enough fish wardens in nj to enforce all the different rules and regs. He mentioned a saltwater fishing licence for nj would probably help to hire more enforcement people. I know some would bitch about this. I agree with the idea.
I think it would be worth it at a reasonable cost for a license. Uh oh incoming duck
I think everyone on the site agrees we need greater enforcement. Problem with a salt water license is making sure those funds were used for that purpose. Right now the recreational sector contributes an insane amount of money to the economy, taxes from that spending should be sufficient to increase enforcement as is. And the bigger problem with the judicial system, not just with fisheries management but in general, is when someone is caught violating the regulations they get off with a slap on the wrist. Confiscate equipment, increase the fines and you can increase enforcement a hundred fold and have it fund itself. The American public is already taxed out and many can't afford cost of living, especially in this area of the country. Remember sales tax years ago, casinos and the lottery were ALL going to subsidize the absorbitant cost of education. How did that work out and where has all that money gone? A salt water license will kill small businesses already struggling to survive and hurt the sport. With the money spent by recreational anglers for tackle, transportation, gas, food, boats, bait, lodging etc., there should easily be sufficient money available to fund increased enforcement efforts as is.

And if I'm not mistaken, recreational spending in large part funds the ASMFC who have repeatedly treated the recreational angling community as the red headed stepchild.

[NJ219bands]

Talking with a friend today about things you mention. There are not nearly enough fish wardens in nj to enforce all the different rules and regs. He mentioned a saltwater fishing licence for nj would probably help to hire more enforcement people. I know some would bitch about this. I agree with the idea.
I think it would be worth it at a reasonable cost for a license. Uh oh incoming duck

I saw law enforcement officers in my spots 7 times this year. That is way too much law enforcement. Law enforcement should be defunded.

[Duffman]

Talking with a friend today about things you mention. There are not nearly enough fish wardens in nj to enforce all the different rules and regs. He mentioned a saltwater fishing licence for nj would probably help to hire more enforcement people. I know some would bitch about this. I agree with the idea.
I think it would be worth it at a reasonable cost for a license. Uh oh incoming duck

If you ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE all the money collected from a license would go back the fishing community, I’d be all for it

But this is NJ and that license fee would only go to line someone’s pockets.

[Broad Bill]

I saw law enforcement officers in my spots 7 times this year. That is way too much law enforcement. Law enforcement should be defunded.

Wow! Have you ever considered maybe the areas you fish warrant law enforcement presence? Defund law enforcement, tell that to the folks in California, Detroit, Chicago, New York, Newark, Trenton and just about any other urban area in this country.

[Broad Bill]

If you ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE all the money collected from a license would go back the fishing community, I’d be all for it

But this is NJ and that license fee would only go to line someone’s pockets.

That's not going to happen. Read the attached article.

https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2023/04/njs-last-1-billion-in-federal-pandemic-aid-murphy-proposes-where-to-spend/

Thousands of New Jersey claimants have been screwed out of Pandemic benefits because of a completely ineffective and incompetent Department of Labor. And our esteemed Governor wants to take $1 billion dollars of unused Covid money funded by the federal government (our tax dollars) and move it into the state's coffers to use for various non Covid related projects at his discretion. We don't need additional taxes on recreational anglers, we need accountability of where all the money we currently pay the state is currently going and that will never happen. This is just another money grab by Murphy trying to beat the deadline and appropriate left over federal Covid funds before the new debt ceiling legislation is passed which includes a current provision in the Rebublican version (which Biden refuses to address) that would claw back left over funding to the federal government which is where it belongs. Either send it back or use it to pay the enormous amount of Pandemic Unemployment claims held up in an antiquated and broken DOL system or help small businesses that were clobbered during the Pandemic.

[Capt Sal]

Talking with a friend today about things you mention. There are not nearly enough fish wardens in nj to enforce all the different rules and regs. He mentioned a saltwater fishing licence for nj would probably help to hire more enforcement people. I know some would bitch about this. I agree with the idea.
I think it would be worth it at a reasonable cost for a license. Uh oh incoming duck

Where would the money go? In NY when we pay for the Charter Boat Permit 250$ it goes into the general fund? In NJ the last time the talked about a Salt Water Lic. they were going to give the money to the Agriculture Dept. By the way NJ charter and Party Boats have to have a NY permit to fish NY waters but the other way around. We charge nothing for NY boats to fish NJ waters. So would every one from NY or any state be required to have a Salt Water NJ Lic.? If the money is used for a good purpose it would benefit NJ.

[Capt Sal]

Hmmm. Not sure about you but I happen to think a state that taxes its people to the extent NJ does has money to do whatever they think is priority. Enforcing regulations is simply not one of their priorities and throwing money at it is not going to change that mentality. This is not about money, it’s about desire.

Does that mean we have to break the law to keep a fish? What ever happened to NJ being a producer state? Seems like NJ is paying the price for the failure of the the other Producer States.There are more Stripers now than 20 years ago and a one fish limit? What more do they want?

[Skolmann]

If the regulations allowed it, the regulations are to blame not anglers.

Just because you CAN doesn’t mean you SHOULD.

For whatever reason IMO, the northeastern angler feels the need to be the dock, internet hero boasting and pounding their chest to show the world just hoiw great an angler they are.

I’ve said for years that the northeastern angler should follow the example of the southeastern angler-Routinely, they will keep 1 or 2 for the table per trip even though the regs state the can keep more.

[Broad Bill]

I didn't say they should, I said they have the right to but it's a personal choice. Regulations should take into consideration harvest levels a fishery can sustain as well as what age classes they wanted harvested to insure adequate recruitment levels to perpetuate the stock.

I don't at all agree with the comparison between northeastern and southeastern anglers, the striped bass population and Chesapeake fluke stock are just two examples of complete exploitation by southern states that ruined their fisheries.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Another article on the emergency measures and according to the quote from the NJDEP the Striped Bass Bonus program remains intact https://www.saltwatersportsman.com/news/emergency-striped-bass-regulations-enacted/

[Broad Bill]

The regulations for striped bass were the same in 2021 as they were in 2022. If the stock is in such trouble, and the Chesapeake stock along the coast as has been stated is causing such declines for southern and northern states with ocean based landings, how could the harvest per the attached article have doubled in 2022 over 2021. Harvest is landings and doesn't include discard mortality so if the stock has declined to a point where emergency measures have to be implemented, how is it possible under the same regulations and possession limits that harvest doubled year over year. MRIP and phantom fishing efforts statistics strike again.

[Gerry Zagorski]

The regulations for striped bass were the same in 2021 as they were in 2022. If the stock is in such trouble, and the Chesapeake stock along the coast as has been stated is causing such declines for southern and northern states with ocean based landings, how could the harvest per the attached article have doubled in 2022 over 2021. Harvest is landings and doesn't include discard mortality so if the stock has declined to a point where emergency measures have to be implemented, how is it possible under the same regulations and possession limits that harvest doubled year over year. MRIP and phantom fishing efforts statistics strike again.
Yep hard to believe that MRIP is the best available science… Spin the MRIP wheel and sometimes you win and sometimes you loose. Nothing scientific about it.

[pectoralfin]

Could someone please explain how and where they get their information from.
Has anyone been asked by a representative from NMFS or filled out a survey form regarding SB? And how does this affect commercial fishing for SB? Did they reduce their quota?

[Broad Bill]

Yep hard to believe that MRIP is the best available science… Spin the MRIP wheel and sometimes you win and sometimes you loose. Nothing scientific about it.

Agreed with one caveat. When the MRIP wheel spins, recs always lose.

[hammer4reel]

If you ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE all the money collected from a license would go back the fishing community, I’d be all for it

But this is NJ and that license fee would only go to line someone’s pockets.

Who cares where the few dollar license money goes .
It allows you to get ear marked money back on our portion of the federal excise tax that can only be used for salt water fishing improvements .

But instead of a few dollar license , guys pay 25 bucks a weekend that could be free ramps instead .

Nj salt anglers pay millions a year in excise tax , but won’t spend 2 bucks to get it back .


/

[Broad Bill]

Who cares where the few dollar license money goes .
It allows you to get ear marked money back on our portion of the federal excise tax that can only be used for salt water fishing improvements .

But instead of a few dollar license , guys pay 25 bucks a weekend that could be free ramps instead .

Nj salt anglers pay millions a year in excise tax , but won’t spend 2 bucks to get it back .


/

For starters, I care. New Jersey recreational anglers shouldn't have to spend a penny to get earmarked money back. I thought that was the point of funds being earmarked. Where does it say a saltwater license, if introduced, would be $2 and where does it say money raised from a saltwater license would cause excise taxes to be used exclusively for salt water fishing improvements. Remember the billion in federally funded Covid relief earmarked for small businesses and people suffering the effects of the Pandemic until Murphy decided he'd rather see it in the state's coffers. Free boat ramps, personally I don't think you'll ever see that in New Jersey in your lifetime saltwater license or not.

[hammer4reel]

For starters, I care. New Jersey recreational anglers shouldn't have to spend a penny to get earmarked money back. I thought that was the point of funds being earmarked. Where does it say a saltwater license, if introduced, would be $2 and where does it say money raised from a saltwater license would cause excise taxes to be used exclusively for salt water fishing improvements. Remember the billion in federally funded Covid relief earmarked for small businesses and people suffering the effects of the Pandemic until Murphy decided he'd rather see it in the state's coffers. Free boat ramps, personally I don't think you'll ever see that in New Jersey in your lifetime saltwater license or not.


The feds say it right in the explanation to get your portion of the excise tax spent on gear you buy .
Every piece of fishing gear you buy you paid an 11% tax on .
To get that money to come back to the state it’s required to show how many licensed salt water anglers there are .

States like Florida get every penny thry are entitled to as well as left over funds from states like ours who get nothing .
Free boat ramps , tons of money towards their reefs etc .

In states like ours they would go to the municipal Ramos etc and pay the fees to operate it .

That 2$ license pays back millions .


In a state like NJ that has a general fund , having ear marked money that can’t go into that fund . But has to be used for salt water fishing improvements is HUGE .

.
.

[Wilson]

A Florida resident annual saltwater license costs $17.00.

Almost every state I have been to requires a salt license and mostly have well marked and well maintained ramps, access to shore fishing, ample parking, restrooms and fish cleaning facilities. Florida fishing access and facilities are tops.
If the license fee would make the above mentioned happen in NJ then no one would bitch about buying a license.
$17.00 is less then lunch, gas and tolls for lots of people.

[Broad Bill]

Okay I'll bite. If a saltwater license is popular in most coastal states, generates millions of dollars in revenue in license fees alone hopefully to be used for the benefit of better enforcement and improving saltwater fisheries in the state and it would generate millions in excise tax funds to New Jersey, why hasn't New Jersey adopted it?

[Gerry Zagorski]

Could someone please explain how and where they get their information from.
Has anyone been asked by a representative from NMFS or filled out a survey form regarding SB? And how does this affect commercial fishing for SB? Did they reduce their quota?

The data on the recreational side in terms of number of fish caught comes from MRIP https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/recreational-fishing-data/about-marine-recreational-information-program. It’s basically people interviewing fishermen and since everyone can’t be interviewed applying assumptions. Commercial catches are much more accurate since their catch is weighed.

[hammer4reel]

Okay I'll bite. If a saltwater license is popular in most coastal states, generates millions of dollars in revenue in license fees alone hopefully to be used for the benefit of better enforcement and improving saltwater fisheries in the state and it would generate millions in excise tax funds to New Jersey, why hasn't New Jersey adopted it?


Because NJ doesn’t care about you being able to hunt or fish here .
They only chase money they can put into the general fund that they can spend as they wish .
Our government here would spend millions to chase Pennie’s that they get to distribute .

So when it comes to ear marked money they HAVE to spend for us only in saltwater improvements it falls on deaf ears .

And instead of using their heads NJ fisherman right away don’t wanna give the state any more money . So instead pay ridiculous ramp fees each week , have no money coming back in for improvements . And just loose more every season .
A salt water license would give you a louder voice in how things happen in our store effecting our fishery .

.

[Broad Bill]

The feds say it right in the explanation to get your portion of the excise tax spent on gear you buy .
Every piece of fishing gear you buy you paid an 11% tax on .
To get that money to come back to the state it’s required to show how many licensed salt water anglers there are .

States like Florida get every penny they are entitled to as well as left over funds from states like ours who get nothing .
Free boat ramps , tons of money towards their reefs etc .

In states like ours they would go to the municipal Ramos etc and pay the fees to operate it .

That 2$ license pays back millions .


In a state like NJ that has a general fund , having ear marked money that can’t go into that fund . But has to be used for salt water fishing improvements is HUGE .

.
.

Believe the regulation you're referring to is the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fishing Restoration Act which relates to fresh and saltwater fisheries as well as the Pittman-Robertson Act which covers hunting.

The tax for fishing is on specific fishing related purchases at 10%, not 11%, and motorboat gas purchases at 18.4 cents per gallon. 70% of the overall funds generated by the Act comes from the gas tax on motor boats and small engines which was included under the Wallop-Breaux Act. I believe the Wallop-Breaux Act also partly funds the ASMFC, MAMFC or both.

All states have general funds, even Florida. When Dingell-Johnson was enacted, states were required to enact laws prohibiting the diversion of license fees paid by anglers for any purpose other than the administration of their state fishing agency which all 50 states agreed to. So New Jersey is no different than Florida or any other state in that respect. Difference is Florida and certain other states generate revenue from saltwater fishing licenses, New Jersey doesn't. But if they did, those funds are not earmarked exclusively for saltwater improvement, they're spent on a myriad of both freshwater and saltwater projects at the discretion of the state fisheries agency. Nowhere did I see that list include increased salt water enforcement or free ramp access. You can see the uses yourself in the attached link.

In 2022, total funds paid out by Dingell-Johnson was $399 million. Every state gets something, so New Jersey did benefit to the tune of $3.99 million. The allocation formula is 60% based on number of licensed anglers (both salt and fresh water) and 40% based on geographic size. Every state gets 1% of the overall annual payout minimum and no more than 5% maximum. In 2022, twelve states got the 1% minimum of $3.99 million including NJ, Ct, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont meaning based on the allocation formula they didn't meet the minimum allocation but based on the law received the minimum regardless. Only two states got the 5% maximum, Alaska and Texas followed closely by California which got 4.67% of the $399 million payout.

New Jersey in 2022 had 138,000 anglers in the Salt Water Registry, if there was a saltwater license in New Jersey and all 138,000 registrants bought a license which is highly unlikely, it appears New Jersey would still have received 1% of the pie which means a salt water license as far as excise tax apportionment is concerned would have zero impact.

A salt water license would however obviously generate revenue, that revenue would not be allowed to go in the general fund (legally) but it would not at all be restricted to salt water improvements as mentioned.

After reading this, the size and population of our state is impacting New Jersey not receiving a higher proportion of these excise taxes more than anything else, including a general fund which every state has or the lack of a salt water license. Pennsylvania, for example, which obviously doesn't have a salt water license, received 2.33% of the $399 million or $9.3 million dollars because of their population and number of fresh water licenses sold in the state.

Everything anyone needs to know about how this works or is supposed to work is in the attached link.

https://wildlifeforall.us/resources/pittman-robertson-and-dingell-johnson-at-a-glance/#:~:text=Pittman%2DRobertson%20Act%20at%20a,guns%2 C%20ammunition%20and%20archery%20equipment. Halfway down the first page, click on Dingell-Johnson at a Glance and it walks through funding, how the money is spent with details about some of the programs funded.

Thought this might help everyone better understand the process, didn't mean to detract from the striper slot topic.

[reason162]

NJ was the only state that voted against the emergency measure, which passed 15 to 1.

Think about this for a second - our state, knowing they had zero chance of stopping the measure, decided to vote no anyway, just so we can be on the record as the worst state for conservation measures year after year.

I would say it's shameful but these people who purportedly represent "our interests" have no shame.

[hammer4reel]

Believe the regulation you're referring to is the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fishing Restoration Act which relates to fresh and saltwater fisheries as well as the Pittman-Robertson Act which covers hunting.

The tax for fishing is on specific fishing related purchases at 10%, not 11%, and motorboat gas purchases at 18.4 cents per gallon. 70% of the overall funds generated by the Act comes from the gas tax on motor boats and small engines which was included under the Wallop-Breaux Act. I believe the Wallop-Breaux Act also partly funds the ASMFC, MAMFC or both.

All states have general funds, even Florida. When Dingell-Johnson was enacted, states were required to enact laws prohibiting the diversion of license fees paid by anglers for any purpose other than the administration of their state fishing agency which all 50 states agreed to. So New Jersey is no different than Florida or any other state in that respect. Difference is Florida and certain other states generate revenue from saltwater fishing licenses, New Jersey doesn't. But if they did, those funds are not earmarked exclusively for saltwater improvement, they're spent on a myriad of both freshwater and saltwater projects at the discretion of the state fisheries agency. Nowhere did I see that list include increased salt water enforcement or free ramp access. You can see the uses yourself in the attached link.

In 2022, total funds paid out by Dingell-Johnson was $399 million. Every state gets something, so New Jersey did benefit to the tune of $3.99 million. The allocation formula is 60% based on number of licensed anglers (both salt and fresh water) and 40% based on geographic size. Every state gets 1% of the overall annual payout minimum and no more than 5% maximum. In 2022, twelve states got the 1% minimum of $3.99 million including NJ, Ct, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont meaning based on the allocation formula they didn't meet the minimum allocation but based on the law received the minimum regardless. Only two states got the 5% maximum, Alaska and Texas followed closely by California which got 4.67% of the $399 million payout.

New Jersey in 2022 had 138,000 anglers in the Salt Water Registry, if there was a saltwater license in New Jersey and all 138,000 registrants bought a license which is highly unlikely, it appears New Jersey would still have received 1% of the pie which means a salt water license as far as excise tax apportionment is concerned would have zero impact.

A salt water license would however obviously generate revenue, that revenue would not be allowed to go in the general fund (legally) but it would not at all be restricted to salt water improvements as mentioned.

After reading this, the size and population of our state is impacting New Jersey not receiving a higher proportion of these excise taxes more than anything else, including a general fund which every state has or the lack of a salt water license. Pennsylvania, for example, which obviously doesn't have a salt water license, received 2.33% of the $399 million or $9.3 million dollars because of their population and number of fresh water licenses sold in the state.

Everything anyone needs to know about how this works or is supposed to work is in the attached link.

https://wildlifeforall.us/resources/pittman-robertson-and-dingell-johnson-at-a-glance/#:~:text=Pittman%2DRobertson%20Act%20at%20a,guns%2 C%20ammunition%20and%20archery%20equipment. Halfway down the first page, click on Dingell-Johnson at a Glance and it walks through funding, how the money is spent with details about some of the programs funded.

Thought this might help everyone better understand the process, didn't mean to detract from the striper slot topic.

Nj already gets its portion back on the fresh water license sales .
It’s doesn’t get anything back on the number of saltwater fisherman because there is no license .
Ramp access is one of the things returning funds are used for .if no available land is available they pay for the use of ramps that are available .
.
.

[Broad Bill]

NJ was the only state that voted against the emergency measure, which passed 15 to 1.

Think about this for a second - our state, knowing they had zero chance of stopping the measure, decided to vote no anyway, just so we can be on the record as the worst state for conservation measures year after year.

I would say it's shameful but these people who purportedly represent "our interests" have no shame.

I hear what you're saying and agree that obviously New Jersey's vote meant nothing in a 15 - 1 overall vote but food for thought. Where do the powers to be that represent the state draw the line. Over the years we've lost winter flounder, mackerel, cod, whiting and weakfish for all practical purposes. Sea bass, porgies, fluke, blackfish, bluefish and just about every other recreational species under management has substantially more restrictive regulations than years past. The only fishery that's improved locally are stripers and the new regulations just took 7" away from the current 10" slot range which will result in significantly higher discard mortality levels in the stock up and down the coast.

Recruitment is the problem which is backed by the data in the last stock assessment. The biomass is there, it's just not producing in the Chesapeake. Scientists themselves blame it on pollution and the over harvest of menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay. The result, less forage and a polluted ecosystem. These new regulations don't address the problem, like fluke they impose a paper thin slot range that will only kill more bass.

How many more hits does the recreational sector and small businesses that depend on it have to take before the regulators realize where the problem is? I think New Jersey's vote, as a practical matter, was more symbolic of the above as opposed to their beliefs when it comes to conservation.

[Broad Bill]

Nj already gets its portion back on the fresh water license sales .
It’s doesn’t get anything back on the number of saltwater fisherman because there is no license .
Ramp access is one of the things returning funds are used for .if no available land is available they pay for the use of ramps that are available .
.
.
You missed my point. 60% of the apportionment factor for each state is based on how many freshwater and saltwater combined licenses each state has in relationship to all other states. If all 138,000 saltwater registrants bought a saltwater license in New jersey, New Jersey still would've been below the 1% minimum level and would receive exactly the same amount they did or $399k. In other words, saltwater licenses in New Jersey because of the overall number of licensed anglers the state has relative to other states would have zero impact on the funds we receive.

I agree based on what I've read that ramp access is something these funds are used for from the standpoint of upkeep and accessibility. Not really sure what you mean by "if no available land is available, they pay for the use of ramps that are available".

[hammer4reel]

You missed my point. 60% of the apportionment factor for each state is based on how many freshwater and saltwater combined licenses each state has in relationship to all other states. If all 138,000 saltwater registrants bought a saltwater license in New jersey, New Jersey still would've been below the 1% minimum level and would receive exactly the same amount they did or $399k. In other words, saltwater licenses in New Jersey because of the overall number of licensed anglers the state has relative to other states would have zero impact on the funds we receive.

I agree based on what I've read that ramp access is something these funds are used for from the standpoint of upkeep and accessibility. Not really sure what you mean by "if no available land is available, they pay for the use of ramps that are available".

Nj claims 175000 are involved in the SW registry .
But say 1.2 million fish our marine waters yearly .
Most of those fishing on head boats and charter boats apparently aren’t in the registry for there to be such a difference in those numbers .
.

What I’m saying about the ramps is in many states they buy an access point .
In Nj their us very little available land , so keeping a free access point would be them paying for an already existing Ramps services .

These funds are all based on providing us better access and improving current conditions .

A few states like Nj actually tried to have this fine away with because they didn’t want to be forced to have to improve our access to the outdoors .
.
The excise tax from PR and DJ were supposed to protect our user interests in the outdoors .

We should be trying to get every penny available .

When this came up at a FG meeting a bunch of years ago it was asked would they get money to enforce the licenses and additional officers to cover areas better .
They were told No and totally stopped the license in its tracks .
The free registry didn’t meet the federal guidelines to be used for an actual. Count of those using our marine waters .

.

[Broad Bill]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.thefisherman.com/article/nj-saltwater-anglers-must-register-to-fish-annually/%23:~:text%3DThe%2520New%2520Jersey%2520Division%2 520of,NJ%2520Saltwater%2520Recreational%2520Regist ry%2520Program.&ved=2ahUKEwiu8YOwwd_-AhU0EFkFHXmcDuYQFnoECA8QBQ&usg=AOvVaw20wG0Ml0NezZwKor37rfwX

From an article by Jim Hutchinson Jr. in a Fisherman article. 138,000 registrants in 2022 down from 144,000 in 2021.

I realize while not an apples to apples comparison, if you look at what Muskynut is and has been going through with the state and various politicians trying to get a public launch site on Greenwood Lake, I think it'll be a cold day in hell before we ever see federal funding that accomplishes the same in New Jersey for saltwater anglers with or without a saltwater license.

[reason162]

Over the years we've lost winter flounder, mackerel, cod, whiting and weakfish for all practical purposes. Sea bass, porgies, fluke, blackfish, bluefish and just about every other recreational species under management has substantially more restrictive regulations than years past

Maybe it's not a bad idea to put tougher restrictions in place before things go pear shaped the way winter flounder did? And you didn't mention the first go around with striped bass - a near complete collapse yet guys out east were still catching cows left and right and thought everything was fine. Localized abundance means nothing for a fish that migrates up and down the coast.

And until the larger issues can be addressed, it makes perfect sense to control what we can - which is cutting rec harvest. Remember this emergency measure is just a stop gap to more permanent solutions within a year. From what I read everything is on the table, and I mean everything - hard quotas like the comms have to fish under, a stop-targeting rule once you retain your keeper, a delayed opener to protect the congregated spawners in RB. States that have pushed against stricter regulations for years are now panicking at the new data - that should tell you something.

And I'm sorry but the industry interests you mention are behind the kind of representation we have in this state - I don't want to lump all the for hires and tackle shops into the same heap but talk about short sighted.

[hammer4reel]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.thefisherman.com/article/nj-saltwater-anglers-must-register-to-fish-annually/%23:~:text%3DThe%2520New%2520Jersey%2520Division%2 520of,NJ%2520Saltwater%2520Recreational%2520Regist ry%2520Program.&ved=2ahUKEwiu8YOwwd_-AhU0EFkFHXmcDuYQFnoECA8QBQ&usg=AOvVaw20wG0Ml0NezZwKor37rfwX

From an article by Jim Hutchinson Jr. in a Fisherman article. 138,000 registrants in 2022 down from 144,000 in 2021.

I realize while not an apples to apples comparison, if you look at what Muskynut is and has been going through with the state and various politicians trying to get a public launch site on Greenwood Lake, I think it'll be a cold day in hell before we ever see federal funding that accomplishes the same in New Jersey for saltwater anglers with or without a saltwater license.


https://njseagrant.org/extension/recreational-fishing/#:~:text=There%20are%20approximately%20175%2C000%2 0registered,Jersey%27s%20marine%20waters%20each%20 year.

[Broad Bill]

Maybe it's not a bad idea to put tougher restrictions in place before things go pear shaped the way winter flounder did? And you didn't mention the first go around with striped bass - a near complete collapse yet guys out east were still catching cows left and right and thought everything was fine. Localized abundance means nothing for a fish that migrates up and down the coast.

And until the larger issues can be addressed, it makes perfect sense to control what we can - which is cutting rec harvest. Remember this emergency measure is just a stop gap to more permanent solutions within a year. From what I read everything is on the table, and I mean everything - hard quotas like the comms have to fish under, a stop-targeting rule once you retain your keeper, a delayed opener to protect the congregated spawners in RB. States that have pushed against stricter regulations for years are now panicking at the new data - that should tell you something.


And I'm sorry but the industry interests you mention are behind the kind of representation we have in this state - I don't want to lump all the for hires and tackle shops into the same heap but talk about short sighted.

We don't need more restrictive regulations, in my opinion, we need more sensible regulations. States rarely, if ever, dictate the substance of regulations as opposed to the form they take with conservation equivalency. If federal regulators and government take credit when stocks rebuild, they need to take responsibility for the ones that decline. I also agree yes we should get out in front of pear-shaped declines as opposed to reacting to them after they happen, but again isn't that what fisheries management is all about? Ineffective regulations aren't caused by recreational anglers or the commercial sector, they're caused by fisheries management and the federal government.

I totally agree local abundance isn't the ultimate report card for a fishery with a coast wide presence, but regulations that don't address the problem and will result in more bass killed is just as misguided. The data shows the relationship between the female biomass and recruitment is broken in the striper fishery. The stock, exactly what happened with fluke, is getting significantly less new recruits out of the spawning biomass on a relative and absolute basis. In the case of fluke, the regulations were targeting the harvest of the breeding population as many have pointed out. In the case of stripers science believes the issues are environmental and the excess harvest of Menhaden in Chesapeake Bay. Any benefit gained by protecting 31" - 38" fish with the change for 180 - 360 days, in my opinion, will be more than mitigated by more bass being killed on release with another ridiculous slot range. I don't see how that addresses the problem short-term or long-term, and it certainly doesn't address the Chesapeake Bay problem that's causing this entire situation.

Can you imagine what a stop targeting rule would do once you catch your first keeper on for hire and party boats. You catch a keeper within the first 10 minutes of the trip and paid patrons are supposed to sit out the remaining 7 hours of the trip. Or shore based anglers just say they're fishing for bluefish, it's an impractical and unenforceable regulation.

Many years ago, the same state representation you speak off produced outstanding fishing for every stock. Cod, mackerel, ling, whiting and winter flounder were all destroyed by commercial over harvest and our government selling our resources to foreign governments. Weakfish, sea bass, blackfish, bluefish, porgies, and as you pointed out the first and second decline of the striper stock, were all caused by ineffective regulations and regulations that were reactive and not proactive.

Kick Omega Protein out of Chesapeake Bay and let billions of menhaden filter the pollutants and I'd bet the young of the year index would rebound in a short period of time but local politicians won't do that because of the money they'd lose. That's the true definition of shortsightedness and anti-conservation. I agree all possible solutions should be on the table and we should control what we can control, I'm not in agreement this change is going to benefit the fishery and will most likely hurt it with significantly higher discard levels. It's almost the same as making the slot 28" - 28.99", when you think about it that's not really too far from the the new regulations. How many fish would be killed if that were the range of the slot? When draconian emergency measures are required, it's a validation regulations used over the years one way or another have been bad decisions by fisheries management and failed to sustain the fishery.

[Broad Bill]

https://njseagrant.org/extension/recreational-fishing/#:~:text=There%20are%20approximately%20175%2C000%2 0registered,Jersey%27s%20marine%20waters%20each%20 year.

Jim Hutchinson's source is NJ Fish and Wildlife, don't think you could get a better source and doubt Jim Hutchinson is publishing inaccurate statistics. Either way, my main point is NJ is a small state with significantly less licenses and even if 138,000 or 175,000 saltwater water licenses were added, it would have zero impact on the excise funds awarded New Jersey through the Dingell-Johnson Act.

It would add license revenues to the states Wildlife Agency, how those funds are used is anyone's guess but it certainly would not be for the exclusive improvement of saltwater fisheries. That's the issue most people have with a salt water license, if they're going to pay for it they want to see direct benefits to them fishing the salt which the way this is structured they won't. If you look at the uses in the article from the link I posted, the majority of the funds are used for projects not at all associated with saltwater improvements.

[hammer4reel]

Jim Hutchinson's source is NJ Fish and Wildlife, don't think you could get a better source and doubt Jim Hutchinson is publishing inaccurate statistics. Either way, my main point is NJ is a small state with significantly less licenses and even if 138,000 or 175,000 saltwater water licenses were added, it would have zero impact on the excise funds awarded New Jersey through the Dingell-Johnson Act.

It would add license revenues to the states Wildlife Agency, how those funds are used is anyone's guess but it certainly would not be for the exclusive improvement of saltwater fisheries. That's the issue most people have with a salt water license, if they're going to pay for it they want to see direct benefits to them fishing the salt which the way this is structured they won't. If you look at the uses in the article from the link I posted, the majority of the funds are used for projects not at all associated with saltwater improvements.

JIMS info matches mine fir how many registered anglers there are . It’s right on fish and games web site .
Fg at meetings about the license have always stated over a million anglers fish our marine fishery yearly .
Anyone fishing on just charters or head boats isn’t required to register , they claim that’s a huge number of people , some possibly only fish a day or two .

Guys wanna cry about enforcement , but won’t even vote in favor of a 2 dollar license to help with that , as well as get a larger portion of excise tax back .
So they cut off their head to spit their face .
Recreational fisherman are their own worst enemy .
Commercial fisherman band together . Incredible how big the difference is .

.

[Broad Bill]

JIMS info matches mine fir how many registered anglers there are . It’s right on fish and games web site .
Fg at meetings about the license have always stated over a million anglers fish our marine fishery yearly .
Anyone fishing on just charters or head boats isn’t required to register , they claim that’s a huge number of people , some possibly only fish a day or two .

Guys wanna cry about enforcement , but won’t even vote in favor of a 2 dollar license to help with that , as well as get a larger portion of excise tax back .
So they cut off their head to spit their face .
Recreational fisherman are their own worst enemy .
Commercial fisherman band together . Incredible how big the difference is .

.

Ok, not sure how 138,000 agrees with 175,000 but if that's your opinion you're certainly entitled to it.

You also assume over a million more anglers fishing on for hire and party boats will be required to purchase a saltwater license. So you really want to put more regulatory pressure on party boats and for hire operators. And fyi, Florida party boat and for hire anglers ARE NOT required to purchase a saltwater license as long as the boat has the necessary permit. So you're implying there'd be over a million more saltwater licences sold, that most likely wouldn't be the case unless as I said you want to drive another nail in charter and party boats coffins.

Small state, not enough licenses sold to change the amount of funding NJ would receive in excise taxes if they adopted a salt water license. Facts say so.

Commercial bands together because it's their livelihood, unfortunately recreational will never have that same incentive. I do agree most complain but do nothing to help which is a problem in and of itself.

How much of the $4 million in excise taxes NJ received from freshwater licenses went to enforcement in 2022? Don't recall seeing that on the list of uses in the link I attached.

[hammer4reel]

Ok, not sure how 138,000 agrees with 175,000 but if that's your opinion you're certainly entitled to it.

You also assume over a million more anglers fishing on for hire and party boats will be required to purchase a saltwater license. So you really want to put more regulatory pressure on party boats and for hire operators. And fyi, Florida party boat and for hire anglers ARE NOT required to purchase a saltwater license as long as the boat has the necessary permit. So you're implying there'd be over a million more saltwater licences sold, that most likely wouldn't be the case unless as I said you want to drive another nail in charter and party boats coffins.

Small state, not enough licenses sold to change the amount of funding NJ would receive in excise taxes if they adopted a salt water license. Facts say so.

Commercial bands together because it's their livelihood, unfortunately recreational will never have that same incentive. I do agree most complain but do nothing to help which is a problem in and of itself.

How much of the $4 million in excise taxes NJ received from freshwater licenses went to enforcement in 2022? Don't recall seeing that on the list of uses in the link I attached.

Enforcement has to come from license sales

[Stanton327]

I just allocated about 15 minutes of my life to read this thread b/c I enjoy stripper fishing and have no problem abiding by reasonable measures to protect the fishery. Two thoughts come to mind; to anybody who thinks a fee for a saltwater license in NJ would put the funds into our camp is completely delusional!! The Trenton scumbags would use it for their own interests. Second, sorry to call you out bud, but Reason162 I can’t think of any other way to describe your logic/thinking as a (???) who is working against ensuring the charter guys and party boat captains can continue earning a living!!

[hammer4reel]

I just allocated about 15 minutes of my life to read this thread b/c I enjoy stripper fishing and have no problem abiding by reasonable measures to protect the fishery. Two thoughts come to mind; to anybody who thinks a fee for a saltwater license in NJ would put the funds into our camp is completely delusional!! The Trenton scumbags would use it for their own interests. Second, sorry to call you out bud, but Reason162 I can’t think of any other way to describe your logic/thinking as a (??) who is working against ensuring the charter guys and party boat captains can continue earning a living!!

Goes to show how little you have been involved with our fisheries
Trenton knows they can’t mess with that money
That’s why they don’t chase it . They only chase money they can steal .
Money from excise tax comes with parameters how it can be spent .

Funniest part is you are paying the excise tax on all the tackle you buy .
Yet doing nothing to get its protections back for something you claim to love .

.

[Broad Bill]

Enforcement has to come from license sales

Don't mean to beat a dead horse but I've already posted the regulations which state specifically "license fees are required to go to the administration of state wildlife agencies".

Not trying to stir the pot, just reading the legislation and how these funds get funneled through the system. You've indicated saltwater license fees would be used exclusively for salt water improvements and give NJ more in excise taxes. Those license fees, as agreed to by all 50 states, would go directly into the state wildlife agency and used completely at the agencies discretion which doesn't mean exclusively for salt water improvements or for that matter salt water improvements at all. It also doesn't guarantee increased enforcement and a salt water license wouldn't increase New Jersey's annual portion of excise tax funds by one dollar. I'm not saying there's not a benefit somewhere, but your statements about how these funds are spent and the impact on increased excise tax funding to New Jersey aren't correct.

[hammer4reel]

Don't mean to beat a dead horse but I've already posted the regulations which state specifically "license fees are required to go to the administration of state wildlife agencies".

Not trying to stir the pot, just reading the legislation and how these funds get funneled through the system. You've indicated saltwater license fees would be used exclusively for salt water improvements and give NJ more in excise taxes. Those license fees, as agreed to by all 50 states, would go directly into the state wildlife agency and used completely at the agencies discretion which doesn't mean exclusively for salt water improvements or for that matter salt water improvements at all. It also doesn't guarantee increased enforcement and a salt water license wouldn't increase New Jersey's annual portion of excise tax funds by one dollar. I'm not saying there's not a benefit somewhere, but your statements about how these funds are spent and the impact on increased excise tax funding to New Jersey aren't correct.

A week ago you didn’t even know you were paying
Now you will tell me how they are used
Do more research as google doesn’t tell you all the parameters in one link
And their are federal links that give you getter break downs

Everything else aside
We don’t get squat of what we could get because Recs are too cheap and think they know it all .

Just like guys thinking our entire fisheries should be built around the 745 for hire boats instead of the fisheries themselves .


I state money for enforcement comes from the license fees NOT the excise tax .
You post it comes from license sales and think I said different

Your 138k registered was one year not every year .
But seems your comprehension only lasts through the first thing you read .


You should jump on the band wagon to do away with the excise tax
Even though it’s one of the few things that were written into law to protect our interests . Since the small amount for a salt water fishing license is wasted money to you .

[reason162]

Second, sorry to call you out bud, but Reason162 I can’t think of any other way to describe your logic/thinking as a (???) who is working against ensuring the charter guys and party boat captains can continue earning a living!!

No worries, someone disagreeing with me on the internet won't keep me up at night.

The captains will all be better off with more abundance of fish in the ocean - how will they make a living once the stock collapses?

Again - short sighted to the nth degree.

[reason162]

But seems your comprehension only lasts through the first thing you read .

It's obvious when someone is googling only for info that supports his intractable point of view.

Every state ensures their share of excise taxes - except NJ. Every state voted for the emergency measures - except NJ.

We must be doing something right - everyone else haven't a clue.

[hammer4reel]

It's obvious when someone is googling only for info that supports his intractable point of view.

Every state ensures their share of excise taxes - except NJ. Every state voted for the emergency measures - except NJ.

We must be doing something right - everyone else haven't a clue.

Sadly that’s why NJ anglers get the short end of the stick .
Look at everyone else’s fluke regs . Black fish regs etc .
Ny boats fishing our waters for 6 weeks before black fish opens here .
While I know FG wants to make things better knowing enough of those involved , their hands are tied . Their budget minimal , over worked , under paid .
Yet when supposed sportsman in this state are asked to chip in . They quickly say NO , then spend all year complaining .

The states I have fished in having a license reflect quickly on how important recreational fisherman are to their state .
Nj could care less if we fish or don’t .

.

[pectoralfin]

On YouTube ON The Water Media has a session about Striper Management: Emergency Action Explained with Mike Waine

[Broad Bill]

You guys are too funny. "Recs are too cheap and think they know it all!" Pretty classy. "New Jersey with a saltwater license will get a greater share of excise taxes", that's an impossibility based on the formula that allocates excise taxes from the federal government to states. New Jersey's demographics and population are too small for that to happen, I've said that repeatedly but it appears to be a concept neither of you can wrap your heads around.

Reason you seem to be an intelligent guy, but your role on the site seems to be limited to criticizing everyone else's posts. Hammer if you don't appreciate being challenged with opposing points of view, don't make posts with misinformation.

Fyi, New Jersey would be required to put proceeds from salt water license fees into the state agency. Law requires 24% of those funds to be used for enforcement. So take 138,000 people in the state registry at $2 per license (which I doubt would be the fee) or $276, 000 if we use your numbers. 24% of 276,000 is approximately 67,000 that would go to law enforcement if we adopted a salt water license or maybe one new law enforcement officer. Or maybe we can do what you're suggesting and make for hire and party boat anglers also required to have a saltwater license, put party boats and for hire businesses more at risk of going out of business and hire maybe eight more law enforcement officers for the entire state. I'm sure the sponsors of the site absolutely love your combined logic.

[hammer4reel]

You guys are too funny. "Recs are too cheap and think they know it all!" Pretty classy. "New Jersey with a saltwater license will get a greater share of excise taxes", that's an impossibility based on the formula that allocates excise taxes from the federal government to states. New Jersey's demographics and population are too small for that to happen, I've said that repeatedly but it appears to be a concept neither of you can wrap your heads around.

Reason you seem to be an intelligent guy, but your role on the site seems to be limited to criticizing everyone else's posts. Hammer if you don't appreciate being challenged with opposing points of view, don't make posts with misinformation.

Fyi, New Jersey would be required to put proceeds from salt water license fees into the state agency. Law requires 24% of those funds to be used for enforcement. So take 138,000 people in the state registry at $2 per license (which I doubt would be the fee) or $276, 000 if we use your numbers. 24% of 276,000 is approximately 67,000 that would go to law enforcement if we adopted a salt water license or maybe one new law enforcement officer. Or maybe we can do what you're suggesting and make for hire and party boat anglers also required to have a saltwater license, put party boats and for hire businesses more at risk of going out of business and hire maybe eight more law enforcement officers for the entire state. I'm sure the sponsors of the site absolutely love your combined logic.



Lol
You don’t think Recs are cheap .
Google how few donate to any of the people that fight for our fishing rights .
How few guys got involved in SSFF and how few took the time to march in Washington .

Lots guys take time to complain and don’t do anything to help their own cause .

Want to use the resource . Should need a license even if it’s only a daily license to use the resource .


.

[hammer4reel]

You guys are too funny. "Recs are too cheap and think they know it all!" Pretty classy. "New Jersey with a saltwater license will get a greater share of excise taxes", that's an impossibility based on the formula that allocates excise taxes from the federal government to states. New Jersey's demographics and population are too small for that to happen, I've said that repeatedly but it appears to be a concept neither of you can wrap your heads around.

Reason you seem to be an intelligent guy, but your role on the site seems to be limited to criticizing everyone else's posts. Hammer if you don't appreciate being challenged with opposing points of view, don't make posts with misinformation.

Fyi, New Jersey would be required to put proceeds from salt water license fees into the state agency. Law requires 24% of those funds to be used for enforcement. So take 138,000 people in the state registry at $2 per license (which I doubt would be the fee) or $276, 000 if we use your numbers. 24% of 276,000 is approximately 67,000 that would go to law enforcement if we adopted a salt water license or maybe one new law enforcement officer. Or maybe we can do what you're suggesting and make for hire and party boat anglers also required to have a saltwater license, put party boats and for hire businesses more at risk of going out of business and hire maybe eight more law enforcement officers for the entire state. I'm sure the sponsors of the site absolutely love your combined logic.


As far as misinformation , don’t watch the podcast just done with Mike waine .
As you will hear from the Massachusetts rep , the same things I’m saying about the benefit of a salt water license . And the improvements they were able to make ..
Funny how states that also didn’t want a SWL now are glad they did it .

.
If anything besides getting our moneys back from the excise tax .
A salt water license would possibly allow more teeth in enforcement of guys poaching from the resource .
And would give a louder voice for the recreational guys , who always get the short end . When many more than the SW REGISTRY anglers numbers are shown to be using the resource .
There are lots of people who should be registered that could care less .

.

[Tuna Tales]

My take:

We can't even all agree here - you expect different organizations to also agree? We are fighting each other.

I understand people saying no to a paid NJ Saltwater license however I am hearing good feedback from Florida. Access to the outdoors. Free ramps.
I would pay $20.00 per year if it helps. Look at the cost to use the Atlantic Highlands ramp just for one launch. $27.00? Do the math.

The free NJ Saltwater Registry is not working. Most the people don't even sign up for it.

NJ currently loses the 10% Federal Excise Tax on tackle purchase etc. -- because we don't have a paid Saltwater License. We do get those monies from NJ Freshwater and Hunting license fees.

The problem is half of the people in NJ don't want to pay for a NJ Saltwater license. After 20 years - look at where we are now...we are left with crumbs. We need more people to agree.

I can't understand why the Chesapeake area would keep their Trophy Season open? Crazy shameful.

I urge everyone to watch the last 15 minutes of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZLwk0b_3Mk


Joe T.

[dales529]

Been staying quiet as this plays out but another classic example of rec fishermen beating up on each other with no results, Lots of good info and input all in the wrong places. Rec fishing groups with lobbying capability be damned.
Donate to a common cause be damned.
Government wins , commercial interest wins and recs keep on fighting each other. Same old story, same old song.

Bottom line science and peer review are important but throw that all out the window with MRIP in the mix as now none of it matters. Mortality and catch / landings for any species are at best a guess and none of the regulations based on biomass / recruitment etc are even in play once the "guess factors' are part of the math!

Thread a good read though!

[Broad Bill]

My take:

We can't even all agree here - you expect different organizations to also agree? We are fighting each other.

I understand people saying no to a paid NJ Saltwater license however I am hearing good feedback from Florida. Access to the outdoors. Free ramps.
I would pay $20.00 per year if it helps. Look at the cost to use the Atlantic Highlands ramp just for one launch. $27.00? Do the math.

The free NJ Saltwater Registry is not working. Most the people don't even sign up for it.

NJ currently loses the 10% Federal Excise Tax on tackle purchase etc. -- because we don't have a paid Saltwater License. We do get those monies from NJ Freshwater and Hunting license fees.

The problem is half of the people in NJ don't want to pay for a NJ Saltwater license. After 20 years - look at where we are now...we are left with crumbs. We need more people to agree.

I can't understand why the Chesapeake area would keep their Trophy Season open? Crazy shameful.

I urge everyone to watch the last 15 minutes of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZLwk0b_3Mk


Joe T.

I don't disrespect Hammers passion, God knows we need more people like him. Reason, right or wrong, I seldom agree with his views or attitude toward many on the site and NMFS can do no wrong mentality. We've never met, he's probably a great guy I'm sure but philosophically our views couldn't be more different. I imagine he feels the same about me so we'll leave it at that.

TT I want to address your points.

My entire point for posting on this thread was for everyone to understand the issues surrounding excise tax funding, allocations and the impact salt water licenses have only after the topic was brought up. And in doing so, hopefully share those facts so we can each understand the upside benefits and downside risks. Personally I don't see that as bad intent.

The free NJ Saltwater Registry is not working. Most the people don't even sign up for it. I have no idea who does and doesn't sign up but the registry reflects 138,607 anglers for 2022.

I understand people saying no to a paid NJ Saltwater license however I am hearing good feedback from Florida. Access to the outdoors. Free ramps.
I would pay $20.00 per year if it helps. Look at the cost to use the Atlantic Highlands ramp just for one launch. $27.00? Do the math.

Before assuming NJ would benefit like Florida, consider the following. 60% of the allocation factor is based on licenses, both fresh and saltwater, and not just salt water licenses as stated in the thread. The other 40% is based on geographic size which a salt water license would have no impact on. In 2022, Florida issued 2.7 million licenses, both fresh and salt and New Jersey issued 138k, just fresh. That's why Florida received 3.56% of the allocation or $14.2 million in excise taxes and why NJ and 11 other smaller states received the minimum 1% or just shy of $4 million. From a relative point of view due to the minimum, NJ and the other 11 smaller states proportionately received significantly more in excise tax refunds compared to license sales than Florida but $10 million less in overall funding. $10 million less funding based on 2.5 million less licenses sold. A salt water license for the 138,000 in the registry added if NJ adopted a salt water license would HAVE ZERO IMPACT on what New Jersey receives. NONE, NADA, ZILCH, ZERO. To give perspective, the top ten states combined had over 15 million resident and non resident salt and fresh water fishing licenses issued in 2017. Now add the other 40 states and see where New Jersey's 138,000 licenses or 276,000 with the addition of a salt water license ranks.
Imagine what that number is today six years later. That's why New Jersey will never get more than the minimum 1%. In the above scenario, if $138,000 registrants were to require salt water licenses and every one signed up at $2, the ONLY benefit is $276k more in license fees will also go into the coffers of the state fishery agency to be used at their sole discretion within the limits of their charter which is not limited exclusively to salt water improvements.

Florida and every state got what they were entitled to, so did New Jersey. New Jersey did not as stated get nothing, they actually benefited from the 1% floor and proportionately got way more than larger states like Alaska, California, Texas, North Carolina, Montana, Florida, Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin relative to overall license sales. Those states with a 5% cap actually funded New Jersey's 1% minimum, not the other way around as was suggested.

NJ currently loses the 10% Federal Excise Tax on tackle purchase etc. -- because we don't have a paid Saltwater License. We do get those monies from NJ Freshwater and Hunting license fees.

Completely untrue misinformation. We didn't lose anything in Excise tax refunds, we actually received almost $4 million which is exactly what we were entitled to, if not more, because of the protection afforded smaller states with the 1% minimum written into the original legislation.

I can't understand why the Chesapeake area would keep their Trophy Season open? Crazy shameful.

My understanding is the Trophy Season allows anglers from 5/1 through 5/15 to keep one bass at a minimum of 35" in a specifically designated area of Chesapeake Bay. I'm in complete agreement, on the surface it appears to be politics and preferential treatment for someone and not conservation whatsoever. I guess all people and all states aren't created equal after all.

Amazing what someone can ascertain from just one google search;)

[Broad Bill]

Been staying quiet as this plays out but another classic example of rec fishermen beating up on each other with no results, Lots of good info and input all in the wrong places. Rec fishing groups with lobbying capability be damned.
Donate to a common cause be damned.
Government wins , commercial interest wins and recs keep on fighting each other. Same old story, same old song.

Bottom line science and peer review are important but throw that all out the window with MRIP in the mix as now none of it matters. Mortality and catch / landings for any species are at best a guess and none of the regulations based on biomass / recruitment etc are even in play once the "guess factors' are part of the math!

Thread a good read though!

Dales, I couldn't agree with you more. Facts as written into MSA don't drive fishery management decisions. Political agendas and a narrative they want drive the facts. When you control the data you control everything even when the data suggest otherwise or is proven wrong.

[hammer4reel]

Here is a good read on actual things being done right now in Delaware with excise money .

I believe we have way more than the small amount of SW registered anglers in our state .
Even a tiny State like Delaware is seeing it’s benefits

If there are even just a half million saltwater anglers in Nj we would def reap better rewards than currently get
And it’s just our money coming back we already paid forward

I personally would not have an issue with a 25 dollar yearly license if it helped protect our fishing rights and gained us better access .

Nj has used moneys generated from tax coming back on freshwater license sales to buy access points on major rivers etc to keep those areas available to the public .



Here is Delaware artical

https://www.capegazette.com/article/where-does-all-money-go/256637

[Broad Bill]

So here's the question we should be asking. Delaware, like New Jersey, is one of the 12 states that gets the 1% excise minimum. Delaware has an $11 dollar general recreational fishing license which I believe allows license holders to fish both fresh and saltwater. NJ charges $22 plus trout stamps etc. Delaware has ~$1.5 million in license revenues and NJ has ~$3.2. Seems like New Jersey, without the added benefit of saltwater license fees, already generates almost $1.7 million more in fishing license revenue than Delaware and receives exactly the same amount in excise taxes from the fed.

If I understand your post, I don't see the problem in this case being federal excise taxes and license revenues generated as NJ collectively receives much more. The problem you're eluding to seems to be how these funds are being spent by the State Fishery Agencies as opposed to New Jersey's cut of the pie.

Would that be a fair assessment of your post?

[hammer4reel]

So here's the question we should be asking. Delaware, like New Jersey, is one of the 12 states that gets the 1% excise minimum. Delaware has an $11 dollar general recreational fishing license which I believe allows license holders to fish both fresh and saltwater. NJ charges $22 plus trout stamps etc. Delaware has ~$1.5 million in license revenues and NJ has ~$3.2. Seems like New Jersey, without the added benefit of saltwater license fees, already generates almost $1.7 million more in fishing license revenue than Delaware and receives exactly the same amount in excise taxes from the fed.

If I understand your post, I don't see the problem in this case being federal excise taxes and license revenues generated as NJ collectively receives much more. The problem you're eluding to seems to be how these funds are being spent by the State Fishery Agencies as opposed to New Jersey's cut of the pie.

Would that be a fair assessment of your post?

No I believe our numbers would exceed delawares numbers and their sight gives more input how moneys can be spent


https://documents.dnrec.delaware.gov/fw/Fisheries/Documents/chart%20where%20do%20dollars%20go.pdf



https://dnrec.alpha.delaware.gov/fish-wildlife/licenses/


There is more than just the 1 percent payment
Their is also a 3/1 payback vs the license fees etc

IMO Nj salt water anglers pay a considerable amount of excise tax that we should be chasing every cent that can be used for access to the fishery .

Nj won’t put more money into our access from the general fund
So why not force them to get moneys used for our best interests

[Broad Bill]

What 4/1 payback per license fee are you referring to?

[hammer4reel]

What 4/1 payback per license fee are you referring to?


All states showing the excise input shows 3/1
And seem to explain the returns the same way .
Here is floridas break down
Delaware and Massachusetts’s show it the same way

https://myfwc.com/fishing/sport-fish-restoration/?redirect=sfr

[Tuna Tales]

I don't disrespect Hammers passion, God knows we need more people like him. Reason, right or wrong, I seldom agree with his views or attitude toward many on the site and NMFS can do no wrong mentality. We've never met, he's probably a great guy I'm sure but philosophically our views couldn't be more different. I imagine he feels the same about me so we'll leave it at that.

TT I want to address your points.

My entire point for posting on this thread was for everyone to understand the issues surrounding excise tax funding, allocations and the impact salt water licenses have only after the topic was brought up. And in doing so, hopefully share those facts so we can each understand the upside benefits and downside risks. Personally I don't see that as bad intent.

The free NJ Saltwater Registry is not working. Most the people don't even sign up for it. I have no idea who does and doesn't sign up but the registry reflects 138,607 anglers for 2022.

NJ has more than 138,607 saltwater anglers -- that is my point. Perhaps a paid saltwater license would help since I believe we close to one million saltwater anglers. Seems like many other states are happy with their paid saltwater license. See article link below from Dan. (Let me say yes here in NJ I can understand why many people would be skeptical - however why not try?)

I understand people saying no to a paid NJ Saltwater license however I am hearing good feedback from Florida. Access to the outdoors. Free ramps.
I would pay $20.00 per year if it helps. Look at the cost to use the Atlantic Highlands ramp just for one launch. $27.00? Do the math.

Before assuming NJ would benefit like Florida, consider the following. 60% of the allocation factor is based on licenses, both fresh and saltwater, and not just salt water licenses as stated in the thread. The other 40% is based on geographic size which a salt water license would have no impact on. In 2022, Florida issued 2.7 million licenses, both fresh and salt and New Jersey issued 138k, just fresh. That's why Florida received 3.56% of the allocation or $14.2 million in excise taxes and why NJ and 11 other smaller states received the minimum 1% or just shy of $4 million. From a relative point of view due to the minimum, NJ and the other 11 smaller states proportionately received significantly more in excise tax refunds compared to license sales than Florida but $10 million less in overall funding. $10 million less funding based on 2.5 million less licenses sold. A salt water license for the 138,000 in the registry added if NJ adopted a salt water license would HAVE ZERO IMPACT on what New Jersey receives. NONE, NADA, ZILCH, ZERO. To give perspective, the top ten states combined had over 15 million resident and non resident salt and fresh water fishing licenses issued in 2017. Now add the other 40 states and see where New Jersey's 138,000 licenses or 276,000 with the addition of a salt water license ranks.
Imagine what that number is today six years later. That's why New Jersey will never get more than the minimum 1%. In the above scenario, if $138,000 registrants were to require salt water licenses and every one signed up at $2, the ONLY benefit is $276k more in license fees will also go into the coffers of the state fishery agency to be used at their sole discretion within the limits of their charter which is not limited exclusively to salt water improvements.

Florida and every state got what they were entitled to, so did New Jersey. New Jersey did not as stated get nothing, they actually benefited from the 1% floor and proportionately got way more than larger states like Alaska, California, Texas, North Carolina, Montana, Florida, Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin relative to overall license sales. Those states with a 5% cap actually funded New Jersey's 1% minimum, not the other way around as was suggested.

NJ has more than 138,607 saltwater anglers. Where are you getting a $2.00 saltwater license fee from? Again, the FREE NJ Saltwater Registry is not working. We are going backwards.

NJ currently loses the 10% Federal Excise Tax on tackle purchase etc. -- because we don't have a paid Saltwater License. We do get those monies from NJ Freshwater and Hunting license fees.

Completely untrue misinformation. We didn't lose anything in Excise tax refunds, we actually received almost $4 million which is exactly what we were entitled to, if not more, because of the protection afforded smaller states with the 1% minimum written into the original legislation.


I can't understand why the Chesapeake area would keep their Trophy Season open? Crazy shameful.

My understanding is the Trophy Season allows anglers from 5/1 through 5/15 to keep one bass at a minimum of 35" in a specifically designated area of Chesapeake Bay. I'm in complete agreement, on the surface it appears to be politics and preferential treatment for someone and not conservation whatsoever. I guess all people and all states aren't created equal after all.

Amazing what someone can ascertain from just one google search;)

Yes - amazing what one Google search can yield: Eric and I discussed this topic at the 2022 Saltwater Show. Eric started the Mid-Atlantic edition of The Fisherman Magazine so I think he knows what he is talking about. https://www.capegazette.com/article/where-does-all-money-go/256637

[Broad Bill]

Wouldn't have changed one word in my post. If you disagree with my replies, feel free to speak your mind.

[june181901]

For anyone reading this thread who doesn't have the salt water registry paper with them be advised not to fish Sandy Hook. Rangers ask for it and if you can't produce it you'll be given a citation answerable to the U.S. Magistrates court in Newark.

[baseballman]

Can someone please tell me what is so magical about the 28" mark? Why has this been the starting point of our keeper fish for decades. Seems outdated and against conventional wisdom when 31"+ fish are the ones we want to protect.

I have questioned out loud, for many years, why size limits have not been downgraded after science supports 30+ inch fish being big breeding females. Bonus fish (maybe even 24-30") would be the best fish to be year-round keepers...they are generally plentiful from both shore and boating and the smaller bass are better quality on the table.

Keeping the status quo...28" keepers...will one day result in this fishery being closed down, which is a real shame because the science supports nothing of this sort in NJ.

[Broad Bill]

No I believe our numbers would exceed delawares numbers and their sight gives more input how moneys can be spent


https://documents.dnrec.delaware.gov/fw/Fisheries/Documents/chart%20where%20do%20dollars%20go.pdf



https://dnrec.alpha.delaware.gov/fish-wildlife/licenses/


There is more than just the 1 percent payment
Their is also a 3/1 payback vs the license fees etc

IMO Nj salt water anglers pay a considerable amount of excise tax that we should be chasing every cent that can be used for access to the fishery .

Nj won’t put more money into our access from the general fund
So why not force them to get moneys used for our best interests



Our numbers already exceed Delaware's total funding between excise taxes and license fees so you're repeating what I just said in my post.

NJF&W site essentially provides the same information in the following link.

https://dep.nj.gov/njfw/conservation/wildlife-and-sport-fish-restoration-program/

If you took the time to look, once the funds are deposited with the state fishery agency, the charter of those agencies dictates how the money can be spent. There's language in the legislation regarding minimums required to be spent for certain areas but a large portion of the funds are spent based on the discretion of each states fishery agency.

You posted 4/1, I replied and then you edit your post to 3/1. It would be easier to answer your questions if you didn't change them after I replied and you still didn't answer the question of what that actually means. Maybe you need to call Eric.

I'll keep saying this until I'm blue in the face, we get every dollar we can based on the size of New Jersey and the amount of anglers that we have. The same formula is used for every state in the country, New Jersey is no different. We actually get more than Delaware in license fees but the exact same amount in excise taxes so I really truly don't understand your post other than the fact that you seem to be saying the way the money is spent by Delaware is more noticeable or sensible than the way it's allocated and spent by New Jersey.

Your last comment about moving money from the general fund into areas that have a greater impact on saltwater improvements is fascinating but if you think that's ever going to happen you're living in Fantasyland.

You never answered my question so if we're ever going to have productive exchange, you need to stay on topic as opposed to jumping all over the board.

[Broad Bill]

Yes - amazing what one Google search can yield: Eric and I discussed this topic at the 2022 Saltwater Show. Eric started the Mid-Atlantic edition of The Fisherman Magazine so I think he knows what he is talking about. https://www.capegazette.com/article/where-does-all-money-go/256637

Still waiting for your reply regarding what portion of my post you disagree with. Cryptic replies don't help anyone understand your points This whole process seems fairly simple and straightforward and there's more than a few statements in this thread that don't represent how this entire process works and what the impacts of a salt water license would mean to NJ or the fact that New Jersey does receive its fair share of federal excise taxes. If anyone wants to post something here, I think they owe it to the site to at least be accurate with what they're saying.

[Tuna Tales]

Still waiting for your reply regarding what portion of my post you disagree with. Cryptic replies don't help anyone understand your points This whole process seems fairly simple and straightforward and there's more than a few statements in this thread that don't represent how this entire process works and what the impacts of a salt water license would mean to NJ or the fact that New Jersey does receive its fair share of federal excise taxes. If anyone wants to post something here, I think they owe it to the site to at least be accurate with what they're saying.


Yes...I will reply tonight. Thanks.

[hammer4reel]

Our numbers already exceed Delawares so you're just repeating what I said on my post.

If you took the time to look, once the funds are deposited with the state fishery agency, the charter of those agencies dictates how the money can be spent. There's language in the legislation regarding minimums required to be spent for certain areas but a large portion of the funds are spent based on the discretion of each individual states agency.

You posted 4/1, I replied and then you edit your post to 3/1. It would be easier to answer your questions if you didn't change them after I replied and you still didn't answer the question of what that actually means. Maybe you need to call Eric.

I'll keep saying this until I'm blue in the face, we get every dollar we can based on the size of New Jersey and the amount of anglers that we have. The same formula is used for every state in the country, New Jersey is no different. We actually get more than Delaware in license fees but the exact same amount in excise taxes so I really truly don't understand your post other than the fact that you seem to be saying the way the money is spent by Delaware is more efficient than the way it's allocated and spent by New Jersey.

Your last comment about moving money from the general fund into areas that have a greater impact on saltwater improvements is fascinating but if you think that's ever going to happen you're living in Fantasyland.

You never answered my question so if we're ever going to have productive exchange, you need to stay on topic as opposed to jumping all over the board.

Bill I wrote in a post back to you that I had written 4/1 but it’s 3/1 .
Every state there us info for shows a 3/1 excise payback vs total license sales .
Not per individual angler as you’re stating .
Possibly there is a minimum / maximum on the pay backs .

Regardless when the license was brought up , they explained what we were giving up but not having a paid license . No one said we already got our percentage as you’re claiming .

I didn’t say the general fund would give us anything to help the fisheries here , as it’s well known we get the minimum .
I said we should be chasing the excise money and any available restoration resource moneys we are entitled to .

Our opinions differ on the reasons to have or not have a salt water license , I firmly believe it offers us more protections and programs to benifit recreational fisherman .

The current way hasn’t worked for us at all .
Look up the marine summary card from 2007 , and from 2022 or 2023 .
You will see all we have lost very quickly across every species .


.

[AndyS]

For anyone reading this thread who doesn't have the salt water registry paper with them be advised not to fish Sandy Hook. Rangers ask for it and if you can't produce it you'll be given a citation answerable to the U.S. Magistrates court in Newark.

I have another 126 miles of coastline that I won't be checked on, but thanks anyway.

[dales529]

I have another 126 miles of coastline that I won't be checked on, but thanks anyway.

Thanks for alerting them to the coastline. So you are a steward of conservation and rule player on FW but could give a rats ass on playing by the rules for SW:confused:

[Ol Pedro]

Thanks for alerting them to the coastline. So you are a steward of conservation and rule player on FW but could give a rats ass on playing by the rules for SW:confused:
I think that it's called sarcasm and not giving a rats assing.

[dales529]

I think that it's called sarcasm and not giving a rats assing.

Have a ton of respect for Andy and you could possibly make a case for sarcasm. BUT if you are not fishing SW on a for hire boat you need to sign up for the SW Registry . Asked multiple times for him to explain his opposition but no reply.
Rules are rules and if you follow them on FW you should follow them SW or dont fish SW. Cant have it both ways

[Ol Pedro]

Have a ton of respect for Andy and you could possibly make a case for sarcasm. BUT if you are not fishing SW on a for hire boat you need to sign up for the SW Registry . Asked multiple times for him to explain his opposition but no reply.
Rules are rules and if you follow them on FW you should follow them SW or dont fish SW. Cant have it both ways

I don't have the swr and only fish on for hire boats. It had been a few years since I got checked on fw/ shooting until a few months ago. Saw the Warden twice at Colliers Mills within a week. Chances are good that someone won't get caught by dfg breaking f+g laws in nj. The Wardens are stretched thin. It's good to know that the Sandy Hook Rangers are checking. This information could convince some readers on this site to register.

[Broad Bill]

Very simple, follow the rules or don't fish. People breaking the laws don't just screw the state, they equally screw the people who abide by the rules by paying higher fees to match the state's funding needs. In the absence of enforcement, the same will hold true even with the inclusion of a saltwater license. If people fish without signing up for a registry at no cost, the same people are certainly not going to cough up money for a saltwater license. That's where enforcement and the laws of the state have to intervene by penalizing these *******s with more than just a slap on the wrist fine.

Tuna Tales, still waiting for your commentary regarding the accuracy of my posts or points made you object to. I always look forward to productive exchanges and people sharing alternate opinions or facts respectfully but at the same time I have no patience or regard for people whose contribution to the site is attacking posters credibility and posts while refusing to substantiate their positions with facts.

The points I made on my posts were NJ does benefit from excise tax funding by the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act. That was in response to the post saying "states like ours get nothing".

I posted a link containing an article with broad details of the DJSFR Act for anyone to read which shows the excise tax allocation back to the states is weighted by 60% of total licenses, both freshwater and saltwater sold, as well as 40% being based on the states geographic size. I pointed out repeatedly smaller states like New Jersey because of size and 11 other states receive a 1% minimum share of the total excise tax payout to all states. In 2022, that meant NJ and those other states received $3,996,614 of the total payout of $399,661,336. That was in reply to the post which said "to get the money back to New Jersey, it's required to show how many salt water anglers there are" and "states like Florida get every penny they're entitled to as well as left over funds from states like New Jersey who get nothing". Absolutely not true.

I pointed out based on the salt water registry and 138,000 registrants, even if NJ adopted a license that mirrored that number of registrants it would have zero impact on additional funding mentioned above because our state and population is too small in anglers and geographic size.

I stated excise tax reimbursements by the feds are not used exclusively for salt water improvement which they're not. A smaller percentage based on license sales has to go to enforcement efforts but most of the funds go to conservation projects and all the different type projects mentioned in the article.

Any state with a current salt water license has an exemption for anglers fishing on for hire boats. I'm sure NJ would be the same which is why I said if NJ did adopted a salt water license, it wouldn't cover the additional anglers who fish party and or charter boats. If NJ tried doing that, it would cripple the for hire businesses. If New jersey did adopt a license that cost $20, it would add almost $3 million to the Sport Fishing Restoration Act coffers and benefit projects the state agency charter allows. Just pointing out those projects aren't at all exclusively for the improvement of salt water initiatives and are at the discretion of the agency.

There is a minimum and maximum in the excise tax reimbursement allocation. 1% minimum for smaller states and 5% maximum for larger states to address that question being asked again.

I don't know how the $399 million total reimbursement was arrived at for 2022 or what percentage of manufacturer excise taxes paid it represents but the allocation of those funds back to the states is the same for New Jersey as it is for all other 49 states.

Hammer. I don't understand your 3/1 comment of excise tax refunds to licenses. Use Florida and NJ as an example. Florida issued 2.7 million licenses in 2022, NJ issued 138,000. Florida received $14.2 million in excise tax refunds and NJ about $4 million. That means the ratio for Fla. of refund to licenses sold is about 5:1 and for New Jersey 29:1. Clearly based on license sales, it appears other states are funding NJ as opposed to NJ funding other states due to the protection the 1% minimum provides smaller states. If you use license revenues as opposed to licenses, the ratios are just as skewed. If there's another 3:1 funding component involved here which I haven't covered, share your source.

Those are the broad strokes of my posts I shared on this thread and certainly not based on one google search. If there's anything I've shared anyone disagrees with or thinks I'm misrepresenting about the DJ Act and how the funding works it's way through the system, share your thoughts. But if your an empty suit with no constructive intentions to help educate the members and sponsors of the site and the sites educational value, you'd be better serving the interest of the site by keeping your opinions to yourself.

There's so few who try to help the recreational angling community by being actively involved and too many who sit on the sidelines and complain. Either get involved and be constructive or truthfully just STFU. There's enough headwinds from our federal government, politicians, regulators and bureaucrats to battle every day, sarcasm from our own recreational peanut gallery doesn't make that effort any easier.

[Tuna Tales]

Very simple, follow the rules or don't fish. People breaking the laws don't just screw the state, they equally screw the people who abide by the rules by paying higher fees to match the state's funding needs. In the absence of enforcement, the same will hold true even with the inclusion of a saltwater license. If people fish without signing up for a registry at no cost, the same people are certainly not going to cough up money for a saltwater license. That's where enforcement and the laws of the state have to intervene by penalizing these *******s with more than just a slap on the wrist fine.

Tuna Tales, still waiting for your commentary regarding the accuracy of my posts or points made you object to. I always look forward to productive exchanges and people sharing alternate opinions or facts respectfully but at the same time I have no patience or regard for people whose contribution to the site is attacking posters credibility and posts while refusing to substantiate their positions with facts.

The points I made on my posts were NJ does benefit from excise tax funding by the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act. That was in response to the post saying "states like ours get nothing".

I posted a link containing an article with broad details of the DJSFR Act for anyone to read which shows the excise tax allocation back to the states is weighted by 60% of total licenses, both freshwater and saltwater sold, as well as 40% being based on the states geographic size. I pointed out repeatedly smaller states like New Jersey because of size and 11 other states receive a 1% minimum share of the total excise tax payout to all states. In 2022, that meant NJ and those other states received $3,996,614 of the total payout of $399,661,336. That was in reply to the post which said "to get the money back to New Jersey, it's required to show how many salt water anglers there are" and "states like Florida get every penny they're entitled to as well as left over funds from states like New Jersey who get nothing". Absolutely not true.

I pointed out based on the salt water registry and 138,000 registrants, even if NJ adopted a license that mirrored that number of registrants it would have zero impact on additional funding mentioned above because our state and population is too small in anglers and geographic size.

I stated excise tax reimbursements by the feds are not used exclusively for salt water improvement which they're not. A smaller percentage based on license sales has to go to enforcement efforts but most of the funds go to conservation projects and all the different type projects mentioned in the article.

Any state with a current salt water license has an exemption for anglers fishing on for hire boats. I'm sure NJ would be the same which is why I said if NJ did adopted a salt water license, it wouldn't cover the additional anglers who fish party and or charter boats. If NJ tried doing that, it would cripple the for hire businesses. If New jersey did adopt a license and it cost $20, $20 times 138,000 would add almost $3 million to the Sport Fishing Restoration Act coffers which would benefit the projects that state agencies charter allows. Just pointing out those projects aren't at all exclusively for the improvement of salt water initiatives and are at the discretion of the salt water agency. At least that's my understanding.

There is a minimum and maximum in the excise tax reimbursement allocation. 1% minimum for smaller states and 5% maximum for larger states to address that question being asked again.

I don't know how the $399 million total reimbursement was arrived at for 2022 or what percentage of manufacturer excise taxes paid it represents but the allocation of those funds back to the states is the same for New Jersey as it is for all other 49 states.

Hammer. I don't understand your 3/1 comment of excise tax refunds to licenses. Use Florida and NJ as an example. Florida issued 2.7 million licenses in 2022, NJ issued 138,000. Florida received $14.2 million in excise tax refunds and NJ about $4 million. That means the ratio for Fla. of refund to licenses sold is about 5:1 and for New Jersey 29:1. Clearly based on license sales, it appears other states are funding NJ as opposed to NJ funding other states due to the protection the 1% minimum provides smaller states. If you use license revenues as opposed to licenses, the ratios are just as skewed. If there's another 3:1 funding component involved here which I haven't covered, share your source.

Those are the broad strokes of my posts I shared on this thread and certainly not based on one google search. If there's anything I've shared anyone disagrees with or thinks I'm misrepresenting about the DJ Act and how the funding works it's way through the system, share your thoughts. But if your an empty suit with no constructive intentions to help educate the members and sponsors of the site and the sites educational value, you'd be better serving the interest of the site by keeping your opinions to yourself.

There's so few who try to help the recreational angling community by being actively involved and too many who sit on the sidelines and complain. Either get involved and be constructive or truthfully just STFU. There's enough headwinds from our federal government, politicians, regulators and bureaucrats to battle every day, sarcasm from our own recreational peanut gallery doesn't make that effort any easier.


My point was most states south of NJ have a paid Saltwater License fee. TX to DE. Every boat ramp in DE is free. Tidal waters, freshwater etc. The idea the NJ would steal these monies is just plan incorrect. LA included. Huey E. Long territory. We have to write the bill so NJ can't steal these monies. Have a separate advisory panel to oversee the money.

Perhaps having a paid NJ Saltwater License could increase the money we get from the 3 to 1 ratio. They just don't hand you the money - you have to have a planned project. Boat ramp, reef, access, fishing piers etc. Right now look at the cost for one boat launch. If you launch 20 times per year that's $500.

Regarding the 10% excise tax my point is I believe NJ would receive more monies if we knew how many saltwater anglers we really. NJ has way more than 138,000. Also what is NJ doing with this money? I did not see too many details on their website.

Again, I am not saying yes or no to paid Saltwater License -- however after 20+ years of doing the same, writing letters, signing up for fishing organizations, marching in DC etc etc. -- look at the shit show regs we have now. Most people I speak with would be in favor for a paid saltwater license IF the money is allocated correctly.

I don't have all of the answers -- however let's try something new / different (work together to find a solution) and stop fighting each other. If not, we will be fishing for dogfish very soon.

[AndyS]

I would purchase a saltwater license but won't sign up for the registry, and I have written that before. To think someone would pay a fine for something that is free is simply embarrassing. Can we get back to striped bass now ?

[Duffman]

I would purchase a saltwater license but won't sign up for the registry, and I have written that before. To think someone would pay a fine for something that is free is simply embarrassing. Can we get back to striped bass now ?

Selective Service? Just sayin

[dales529]

I would purchase a saltwater license but won't sign up for the registry, and I have written that before. To think someone would pay a fine for something that is free is simply embarrassing. Can we get back to striped bass now ?

Thanks Andy / understood. Cant totally agree but valid point. I am not against a SW license and as stated by me and many others if and only if the money is put back into SW fishing.

I think everyone on this thread should jump on a boat together and discuss on the water!:D

[hammer4reel]

Very simple, follow the rules or don't fish. People breaking the laws don't just screw the state, they equally screw the people who abide by the rules by paying higher fees to match the state's funding needs. In the absence of enforcement, the same will hold true even with the inclusion of a saltwater license. If people fish without signing up for a registry at no cost, the same people are certainly not going to cough up money for a saltwater license. That's where enforcement and the laws of the state have to intervene by penalizing these *******s with more than just a slap on the wrist fine.

Tuna Tales, still waiting for your commentary regarding the accuracy of my posts or points made you object to. I always look forward to productive exchanges and people sharing alternate opinions or facts respectfully but at the same time I have no patience or regard for people whose contribution to the site is attacking posters credibility and posts while refusing to substantiate their positions with facts.

The points I made on my posts were NJ does benefit from excise tax funding by the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act. That was in response to the post saying "states like ours get nothing".

I posted a link containing an article with broad details of the DJSFR Act for anyone to read which shows the excise tax allocation back to the states is weighted by 60% of total licenses, both freshwater and saltwater sold, as well as 40% being based on the states geographic size. I pointed out repeatedly smaller states like New Jersey because of size and 11 other states receive a 1% minimum share of the total excise tax payout to all states. In 2022, that meant NJ and those other states received $3,996,614 of the total payout of $399,661,336. That was in reply to the post which said "to get the money back to New Jersey, it's required to show how many salt water anglers there are" and "states like Florida get every penny they're entitled to as well as left over funds from states like New Jersey who get nothing". Absolutely not true.

I pointed out based on the salt water registry and 138,000 registrants, even if NJ adopted a license that mirrored that number of registrants it would have zero impact on additional funding mentioned above because our state and population is too small in anglers and geographic size.

I stated excise tax reimbursements by the feds are not used exclusively for salt water improvement which they're not. A smaller percentage based on license sales has to go to enforcement efforts but most of the funds go to conservation projects and all the different type projects mentioned in the article.

Any state with a current salt water license has an exemption for anglers fishing on for hire boats. I'm sure NJ would be the same which is why I said if NJ did adopted a salt water license, it wouldn't cover the additional anglers who fish party and or charter boats. If NJ tried doing that, it would cripple the for hire businesses. If New jersey did adopt a license that cost $20, it would add almost $3 million to the Sport Fishing Restoration Act coffers and benefit projects the state agency charter allows. Just pointing out those projects aren't at all exclusively for the improvement of salt water initiatives and are at the discretion of the agency.

There is a minimum and maximum in the excise tax reimbursement allocation. 1% minimum for smaller states and 5% maximum for larger states to address that question being asked again.

I don't know how the $399 million total reimbursement was arrived at for 2022 or what percentage of manufacturer excise taxes paid it represents but the allocation of those funds back to the states is the same for New Jersey as it is for all other 49 states.

Hammer. I don't understand your 3/1 comment of excise tax refunds to licenses. Use Florida and NJ as an example. Florida issued 2.7 million licenses in 2022, NJ issued 138,000. Florida received $14.2 million in excise tax refunds and NJ about $4 million. That means the ratio for Fla. of refund to licenses sold is about 5:1 and for New Jersey 29:1. Clearly based on license sales, it appears other states are funding NJ as opposed to NJ funding other states due to the protection the 1% minimum provides smaller states. If you use license revenues as opposed to licenses, the ratios are just as skewed. If there's another 3:1 funding component involved here which I haven't covered, share your source.

Those are the broad strokes of my posts I shared on this thread and certainly not based on one google search. If there's anything I've shared anyone disagrees with or thinks I'm misrepresenting about the DJ Act and how the funding works it's way through the system, share your thoughts. But if your an empty suit with no constructive intentions to help educate the members and sponsors of the site and the sites educational value, you'd be better serving the interest of the site by keeping your opinions to yourself.

There's so few who try to help the recreational angling community by being actively involved and too many who sit on the sidelines and complain. Either get involved and be constructive or truthfully just STFU. There's enough headwinds from our federal government, politicians, regulators and bureaucrats to battle every day, sarcasm from our own recreational peanut gallery doesn't make that effort any easier.


Bill you’re wrong on many points and I’m too busy to waste effort on this .

Spoke to a director at FG this afternoon . One that’s responsible for projects done with this money .
We ABSOLUTELY would get more return if we had a SW license .
It’s based on the number of license sales not just the size of the state .
Money we currently get is from Hunting and freshwater license sales .

There are states that require you to still have a license even if fishing in a charter or head boat .
There are not exceptions . You either buy a short term or full year license if you want to fish their waters .

[Broad Bill]

My point was most states south of NJ have a paid Saltwater License fee. TX to DE. Every boat ramp in DE is free. Tidal waters, freshwater etc. The idea the NJ would steal these monies is just plan incorrect. LA included. Huey E. Long territory. We have to write the bill so NJ can't steal these monies. Have a separate advisory panel to oversee the money.

Perhaps having a paid NJ Saltwater License could increase the money we get from the 3 to 1 ratio. They just don't hand you the money - you have to have a planned project. Boat ramp, reef, access, fishing piers etc. Right now look at the cost for one boat launch. If you launch 20 times per year that's $500.

Regarding the 10% excise tax my point is I believe NJ would receive more monies if we knew how many saltwater anglers we really. NJ has way more than 138,000. Also what is NJ doing with this money? I did not see too many details on their website.

Again, I am not saying yes or no to paid Saltwater License -- however after 20+ years of doing the same, writing letters, signing up for fishing organizations, marching in DC etc etc. -- look at the shit show regs we have now. Most people I speak with would be in favor for a paid saltwater license IF the money is allocated correctly.

I don't have all of the answers -- however let's try something new / different (work together to find a solution) and stop fighting each other. If not, we will be fishing for dogfish very soon.

TT, I'm not the enemy here. Bad decisions start when bad data is used like MRIP. My input on this thread was to make sure accurate information of the DJ Act was posted and how a saltwater license would effect overall funding, show NJ's share of federal excise taxes and lay out how funds in the Sports Restoration Act Program "SRA" are supposed to be spent.

Every state has agreed these funds, meaning saltwater license and excise tax refunds, would be used exclusively through the "SRA" program for conservation and restoration. Like all government spending, there should be oversight but people's concerns are well founded. If people saw tangible proof funds were being spent as stated, i.e. greater enforcement, fishing piers being constructed, more boat ramps being built, free and better access points etc., those concerns would be diminished. That's why in spite of proceeds from a salt water license, I think the bigger question is why does a state like Delaware which receives the exact same excise tax refunds NJ does and currently generates less than half our fresh water license fees make better use of those funds. That would imply a spending or lack of transparency problem, not a revenue generation problem.

Please explain to me the 3:1 ratio and site your source. I've asked Hammer to explain what that means. I haven't come across anything that even mentions it and would like to understand it.

I completely agree with your comments about the registry. I'm sure there's many more people fishing who never sign up. At the same time be careful what you ask for because I believe the registry is also used by NMFS to calculate fishing effort and set quotas. If NJ is 500,000, it's going to impact every stocks quota which will impact possession limits, season lengths and size restrictions. I do however agree we need accurate numbers to make intelligent decisions but who knows what the number really is. That's part of the problem. In 2020, NJ had 138,000 NJ resident fresh water fishing licenses, do you think saltwater anglers outnumber fresh water anglers 4:1. Maybe they do, I don't know. Should there be an accounting of funds used, absolutely. It's required by law. NJF&W I assume is a 501 (c) (3) organization required to maintain books and file a 5500 annually which outlines revenue and spending.

Many would pay for a salt water license if they saw tangible change from their fees. Fishing regulations and declines in just about every stock is a different matter, having nothing to do with this topic. The reductions we've all lived through over the years is 100% mismanagement by NMFS, ASMFC and MAMFC. Reason can disagree all he wants but management's singular function is to manage and sustain stocks and they haven't. And when a fishery is forced into emergency measures, it's because management allowed that resource to decline to a level requiring those measures. Every other excuse is finger pointing, political spin doctoring and BS. They have a responsibility to oversee and manage fisheries, just do your job and stop making short term decisions that cause negative long-term results.

Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Maine geographically are all smaller states like NJ. Maryland even has a salt water license and based on the allocation formula each of those states, like NJ, got 1% of excise taxes in 2022 or $3,996,614. Same amount, same calculation. The other states you mentioned south of NJ like Virginia, NC, SC, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas get more of the excise tax refund due to their geographical size and angler population (more licenses sold).

Obviously a saltwater license would generate incremental revenues on it's own regardless of the impact on the federal excise tax allocation. The million dollar question again is how many anglers would sign up, what would the cost per license be and how would that money be spent. FYI, I believe I read somewhere 24% of license fees have to be spent on enforcement which if true would be a big boost in this state to address the unabated poaching of striped bass and other species.

If Andy and his family all buy licenses, New Jersey's percentage of the excise tax refund might actually hit the 5% maximum and put $16 million more into our state fishery agencies coffers:D

[Broad Bill]

Bill you’re wrong on many points and I’m too busy to waste effort on this .

Spoke to a director at FG this afternoon . One that’s responsible for projects done with this money .
We ABSOLUTELY would get more return if we had a SW license .
It’s based on the number of license sales not the size of the state .
Money we currently get is from Hunting and freshwater license sales .

There are states that require you to still have a license even if fishing in a charter or head boat.
There are not exceptions . You either buy a short term or full year license if you want to fish their waters .

Hammer I'm not wrong on any points and if you're too busy to waste effort on this I have a solution, stop posting misinformation. I don't care who you spoke with, I have my sources too and I've shared the regulation on this thread. Maryland has a saltwater license and gets the same amount New Jersey does. Licenses represent just 60% of the allocation formula. How many licenses would be generated by New Jersey if adopted is key to the allocation no one seems to really have a firm handle on. Without that knowledge, you and which ever Director you spoke with can't claim it would result in additional excise tax refunds. I know funds we get now are from hunting and freshwater sales, I've said that all along.

What states require a saltwater license if fishing on a for hire boat? Please provide the names of those states. And yes there are exceptions. Florida, which you brought into the discussion, doesn't require anglers on for hire to purchase a license as long as the boat has the proper blanket permit which every operator would be crazy not to. Neither does North Carolina. Just check out the attached link and stop posting misinformation otherwise you'd have more time on your hands and so would I.

https://www.google.com/search?q=does+florida+require+anglers+on+charter+o r+party+boats+to+have+a+saltwatere+license&oq=does+florida+require+anglers+on+charter+or+part y+boats+to+have+a+saltwatere+license&aqs=chrome..69i57.20743j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

That sounds like an exception wouldn't you agree, feel free to send it to the Director you spoke with.

Here's North Carolina's regulations which you can send as well. If a for hire vessel has a blanket license, anglers on board do not need what ND refers to as a Coastal Recreational Fishing License or "CRFL".

https://www.deq.nc.gov/marine-fisheries/licenses-permits-leases/hire-fishing-licenses/hire-license-structure-table/download

And like I said, if NJ introduced a salt water license and made it mandatory for patrons of charter/party boats to purchase one, in my opinion as I've said all along the state would be putting another nail in the coffin of the for hire fishing community.

[hammer4reel]

Hammer I'm not wrong on any points and if you're too busy to waste effort on this I have a solution, stop posting misinformation. I don't care who you spoke with, I have my sources too and I've shared the regulation on this thread. Maryland has a saltwater license and gets the same amount New Jersey does. Licenses represent just 60% of the allocation formula. How many licenses would be generated by a New Jersey which is key to the allocation no one seems to really have a firm handle on. Without that knowledge, you and which ever Director you spoke with can't make that claim. I know funds we get now are from hunting and freshwater sales, I've said that all along.

What states require a saltwater license if fishing on a for hire boat? Please provide the names of those states. And yes there are exceptions. Florida, which you brought into the discussion, doesn't require anglers on for hire to purchase a license as long as the boat has the proper blanket permit which every operator would be crazy not to. Neither does North Carolina. Just check out the attached link and stop posting misinformation otherwise you'd have more time on your hands and so would I.

https://www.google.com/search?q=does+florida+require+anglers+on+charter+o r+party+boats+to+have+a+saltwatere+license&oq=does+florida+require+anglers+on+charter+or+part y+boats+to+have+a+saltwatere+license&aqs=chrome..69i57.20743j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

That sounds like an exception wouldn't you agree, feel free to send it to the Director you spoke with.

Here's North Carolina's regulations which you can send as well. If a for hire vessel has a blanket license, anglers on board do not need what ND refers to as a Coastal Recreational Fishing License or "CRFL".

https://www.deq.nc.gov/marine-fisheries/licenses-permits-leases/hire-fishing-licenses/hire-license-structure-table/download

And like I said, if NJ introduced a salt water license and made it mandatory for patrons of charter/party boats to purchase one, in my opinion as I've said all along the state would be putting another nail in the coffin of the for hire fishing community.


The Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund is funded in part by the federal excise tax on fishing equipment and is the backbone of state-based fish conservation, benefiting all U.S. states and territories. The Wildlife Restoration Program, funded by the federal excise tax on guns, ammunition, and archery sales, provides grant funds to states and insular areas’ fish and wildlife agencies for projects to restore, conserve, manage and enhance wild birds and mammals and their habitats. Projects include providing public use and access to wildlife resources, hunter education and development and management of shooting ranges. 

“Many Americans are unaware of the remarkable conservation impact of the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program,” said Fish and Wildlife Service Principal Deputy Director Martha Williams. “State wildlife agencies dedicate WSFR funds to a variety of conservation projects and programs such as hunting and fishing education, fish and wildlife management, scientific research, habitat restoration and protection, land and water rights acquisition, and hunting and boating access. Everyone benefits from these investments, which have ensured a legacy of wildlife and outdoor opportunities for all.”  

Congress authorizes the WSFR disbursements through the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act and Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act. To date, the Service has distributed more than $25.5 billion in apportionments for state conservation and recreation projects. The recipient state wildlife agencies have matched these funds with approximately $8.5 billion throughout the years, primarily through hunting and fishing license revenues. 

Eligible states receive WSFR funds through formula-based permanent appropriations. The distribution formulas are based primarily on land and water area and the number of paid recreational hunting and fishing license holders in each state. State fish and wildlife agencies make their own management decisions about how the funds are used. The WSFR dollars typically fund up to 75% of project costs. Most states must provide a matching share of up to 25%, usually from state hunting and fishing license revenues. 

State-by-state listing of the Service’s final apportionment of Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration program funds for Fiscal Year 2022 can be found on the WSFR webpage. 

[Tuna Tales]

TT, I'm not the enemy here. Bad decisions start when bad data is used like MRIP. My input on this thread was to make sure accurate information of the DJ Act was posted and how a saltwater license would effect overall funding, show NJ's share of federal excise taxes and lay out how funds in the Sports Restoration Act Program "SRA" are supposed to be spent.

Every state has agreed these funds, meaning saltwater license and excise tax refunds, would be used exclusively through the "SRA" program for conservation and restoration. Like all government spending, there should be oversight but people's concerns are well founded. If people saw tangible proof funds were being spent as stated, i.e. greater enforcement, fishing piers being constructed, more boat ramps being built, free and better access points etc., those concerns would be diminished. That's why in spite of proceeds from a salt water license, I think the bigger question is why does a state like Delaware which receives the exact same excise tax refunds NJ does and currently generates less than half our fresh water license fees make better use of those funds. That would imply a spending or lack of transparency problem, not a revenue generation problem.

Please explain to me the 3:1 ratio and site your source. I've asked Hammer to explain what that means. I haven't come across anything that even mentions it and would like to understand it.

I completely agree with your comments about the registry. I'm sure there's many more people fishing who never sign up. At the same time be careful what you ask for because I believe the registry is also used by NMFS to calculate fishing effort and set quotas. If NJ is 500,000, it's going to impact every stocks quota which will impact possession limits, season lengths and size restrictions. I do however agree we need accurate numbers to make intelligent decisions but who knows what the number really is. That's part of the problem. In 2020, NJ had 138,000 NJ resident fresh water fishing licenses, do you think saltwater anglers outnumber fresh water anglers 4:1. Maybe they do, I don't know. Should there be an accounting of funds used, absolutely. It's required by law. NJF&W I assume is a 501 (c) (3) organization required to maintain books and file a 5500 annually which outlines revenue and spending.

Many would pay for a salt water license if they saw tangible change from their fees. Fishing regulations and declines in just about every stock is a different matter, having nothing to do with this topic. The reductions we've all lived through over the years is 100% mismanagement by NMFS, ASMFC and MAMFC. Reason can disagree all he wants but management's singular function is to manage and sustain stocks and they haven't. And when a fishery is forced into emergency measures, it's because management allowed that resource to decline to a level requiring those measures. Every other excuse is finger pointing, political spin doctoring and BS. They have a responsibility to oversee and manage fisheries, just do your job and stop making short term decisions that cause negative long-term results.

Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Maine geographically are all smaller states like NJ. Maryland even has a salt water license and based on the allocation formula each of those states, like NJ, got 1% of excise taxes in 2022 or $3,996,614. Same amount, same calculation. The other states you mentioned south of NJ like Virginia, NC, SC, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas get more of the excise tax refund due to their geographical size and angler population (more licenses sold).

Obviously a saltwater license would generate incremental revenues on it's own regardless of the impact on the federal excise tax allocation. The million dollar question again is how many anglers would sign up, what would the cost per license be and how would that money be spent. FYI, I believe I read somewhere 24% of license fees have to be spent on enforcement which if true would be a big boost in this state to address the unabated poaching of striped bass and other species.

If Andy and his family all buy licenses, New Jersey's percentage of the excise tax refund might actually hit the 5% maximum and put $16 million more into our state fishery agencies coffers:D


Regarding the 3 to 1 ratio I called Eric Burnley directly and he confirmed it's 3 to 1. Thanks for the great information however this is my last post for this topic. I am sorry if I went off track from the slot size however as mentioned this is not an easy fix etc. Also - thank you Gerry for allowing this thread to keep going for as long as it has.

[hammer4reel]

Alaska requires a salt water license whether you fish privately , on a head boat or charter boat .
Other states require the head ‘charter boat to carry an overall license to cover patrons . So they are not entirely free either .

Alaskan charters don’t have a problem filling their spots on the boats .
Nor would NJ .

We do have world class fishing here for many species .

It’s just an excuse thinking guys wouldn’t fish for the added expense .

Party boats here upped their prices by 50% during Covid due to having to run with a lighter crowds . People paid the increase , and still are now even though there is no longer a need for limiting fares .

.

[Broad Bill]

Regarding the 3 to 1 ratio I called Eric Burnley directly and he confirmed it's 3 to 1. Thanks for the great information however this is my last post for this topic. I am sorry if I went off track from the slot size however as mentioned this is not an easy fix etc. Also - thank you Gerry for allowing this thread to keep going for as long as it has.

Thanks TT. And fyi, the salt water registry does feed MRIP statistics per link

https://dep.nj.gov/saltwaterregistry/

I know you said it's your last post on the subject but I still don't understand what you and Hammer mean by 3:1 as the apportionment factor mentioned in the DJ article I posted doesn't make any mention of a 3:1 ratio of any kind or have anything to do with the 60/40 license/geographic allocation factor. As I mentioned with the comparison between Florida and New Jersey between licenses and excise funds, no where is there any relationship that mirrors a 3:1 relationship you guys mentioned.

If you could answer one more question, does the 3:1 represent licenses to excise tax dollars, license dollars generated to excise tax dollars or something completely different. Does it mean for every $3 dollars the federal government refunds states in excise taxes, there's a match of $1 from somewhere else. If so, where? All I'd like to know and then we can close this down is what does the 3:1 mean and if it represents additional funding, where does that funding come from. It would help everyone better understand the pros and cons of a saltwater license.

I appreciate your input and having a respectful exchange of information.

[Broad Bill]

The Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund is funded in part by the federal excise tax on fishing equipment and is the backbone of state-based fish conservation, benefiting all U.S. states and territories. The Wildlife Restoration Program, funded by the federal excise tax on guns, ammunition, and archery sales, provides grant funds to states and insular areas’ fish and wildlife agencies for projects to restore, conserve, manage and enhance wild birds and mammals and their habitats. Projects include providing public use and access to wildlife resources, hunter education and development and management of shooting ranges. 

“Many Americans are unaware of the remarkable conservation impact of the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program,” said Fish and Wildlife Service Principal Deputy Director Martha Williams. “State wildlife agencies dedicate WSFR funds to a variety of conservation projects and programs such as hunting and fishing education, fish and wildlife management, scientific research, habitat restoration and protection, land and water rights acquisition, and hunting and boating access. Everyone benefits from these investments, which have ensured a legacy of wildlife and outdoor opportunities for all.”  

Congress authorizes the WSFR disbursements through the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act and Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act. To date, the Service has distributed more than $25.5 billion in apportionments for state conservation and recreation projects. The recipient state wildlife agencies have matched these funds with approximately $8.5 billion throughout the years, primarily through hunting and fishing license revenues. 

Eligible states receive WSFR funds through formula-based permanent appropriations. The distribution formulas are based primarily on land and water area and the number of paid recreational hunting and fishing license holders in each state. State fish and wildlife agencies make their own management decisions about how the funds are used. The WSFR dollars typically fund up to 75% of project costs. Most states must provide a matching share of up to 25%, usually from state hunting and fishing license revenues. 

State-by-state listing of the Service’s final apportionment of Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration program funds for Fiscal Year 2022 can be found on the WSFR webpage. 

I can copy and paste too, your post validates basically everything I've said all along.

WSFR funds pay for 75% of project expenditures, most states must provide a matching share of up to 25% from hunting and fishing license sales so the match is not incremental funds to each state including New Jersey as opposed to a reallocation of existing license sale proceeds to fund agreed upon projects. That answers my 3:1 question, thank you.

The flip side to that coin is if New Jersey received $4 million in 2022 from the federal government in excise tax refunds and that represents the 75%, that means when that money is appropriated $1.33 million of license fees are reallocated to the Sport Recreation Fund to make up the states 25%. In my opinion, those monies would be better served staying with the state and used to beef up enforcement efforts. Point is this match doesn't represent incremental funds to New Jersey or any state, it's a reallocation of license proceeds to be used for conservation as opposed to enforcement activities.

[Capt Sal]

All the arguing and so called experts and we all still got screwed!!! If you have your life savings into a party boat you are in trouble!! The GOVERNMENT WON AGAIN!! 28-31 is RIDICULOUS!! Reminds me of going into the bay and catching thirty fluke to keep two??? MORTALITY??????? What is next barbless hooks and fly rods only LOL I am retired so it does not effect me but i feel for the guys that do it for a living.

[dales529]

All the arguing and so called experts and we all still got screwed!!! If you have your life savings into a party boat you are in trouble!! The GOVERNMENT WON AGAIN!! 28-31 is RIDICULOUS!! Reminds me of going into the bay and catching thirty fluke to keep two??? MORTALITY??????? What is next barbless hooks and fly rods only LOL I am retired so it does not effect me but i feel for the guys that do it for a living.
'
Capt Sal: Granted for hire takes another unnecessary hit but GOVERNMENT didn't win here. Recreational fishermen got EXACTLY what they pushed for and wanted!

[Broad Bill]

'
Capt Sal: Granted for hire takes another unnecessary hit but GOVERNMENT didn't win here. Recreational fishermen got EXACTLY what they pushed for and wanted!

Sometimes what people ask for is the result of a lack of options and not necessarily what they want. The striped bass fishery collapsed in the 70's, not important to get into the details. When do recreational anglers stop paying for the mistakes of NMFS, MAFMC and ASMFC? Government has all the resources available and they still can't get it right with too many stocks. Nobody wins in this situation but regulations drive the health of every stock and this is clearly another failure by government regulators managing an extremely important coastal stock. Recreational didn't get what they wanted, they got what they had no choice but to accept which is another cluster $&@! set of regulations for a fishery that was thriving not long ago and once again finds itself in a state of decline. You might disagree but I don't think recreational anglers or the commercial sector would ever want emergency measures having to be implemented. Everyone loses on this one and in my opinion as I've stated the new regulations will kill more fish through elevated levels of discard mortality and is not at all addressing the problems leading to the stock's declines.

[dales529]

Sometimes what people ask for is the result of a lack of options and not necessarily what they want. The striped bass fishery collapsed in the 70's, not important to get into the details. When do recreational anglers stop paying for the mistakes of NMFS, MAFMC and ASMFC? Government has all the resources available and they still can't get it right with too many stocks. Nobody wins in this situation but regulations drive the health of every stock and this is clearly another failure by government regulators managing an extremely important coastal stock. Recreational didn't get what they wanted, they got what they had no choice but to accept which is another cluster $&@! set of regulations for a fishery that was thriving not long ago and once again finds itself in a state of decline. You might disagree but I don't think recreational anglers or the commercial sector would ever want emergency measures having to be implemented. Everyone loses on this one and in my opinion as I've stated the new regulations will kill more fish through elevated levels of discard mortality and is not at all addressing the problems leading to the stock's declines.

Bill
To clarify my response there are usually 2 factors of fishermen discussing fisheries management. 1 (one ) wants less regulation and 1(one) wants more regulation. The groups that actually fight in meetings and with letters etc are always stuck in the middle and because of that it allows what NOAA wants NOAA gets. Don't get me wrong I think there are many smart and fisheries caring people at NOAA, have met many but a few dictate the "science" that makes our regulations , then throw in the "decline and mortality" rate of in this instance SB PUSHED HARD by recreational anglers and you get sympathy to pass more regulations than necessary without addressing the decline in the CB or fake mortality.

Many think public opinion / comment is ignored but certain groups and of course social media plays a role in or outside of public comment "meetings".

Throw in the FACT that no one uses the "count my fish" function with NJ F&G, cares about SW Registry or SW License, supports groups that can help and wonder why MRIP is so convoluted.

NJ Recreational fisherman have a mass but no voice as its chosen to disagree rather than agree. This thread is a perfect example.

Commercials support the lead and donate huge wether they individually agree with the specific topic or not which is why they win and we lose. Nothing new here

[Broad Bill]

I've heard many times on this site the recreational community does have a voice. RFA, SSFFF, JCAA, ASA and any number of other fishing clubs and organizations just to name a few. Correct me if I'm wrong, but ASA gets a majority of their funding from excise taxes as well. And we just determined on this thread that NJ alone received $4 million in excise taxes in 2022. Excise taxes refunded in 2022 for all states in the Mid-Atlantic region were over $56 million! That doesn't include ASA funding and it's ALL recreational hunting and fishing licenses generated.

Your words, commercials support the lead even if they don't agree with leadership individually. Commercial operations are well organized and funded through either co-ops or unions which has everything to do with that statement. There's funding there and leadership sets the tone and direction. If members disagree, I'm sure they're livelihood would be at stake which is a pretty powerful motivator to row in the same direction as leadership. Not to mention the fact that the sector raises hundreds of millions a year selling their catch which the recreational sector does not but the recreational sector pays excise taxes and gets a significant portion of those taxes back which I don't believe the commercial sector does.

The recreational sector has leadership, generates substantial fees and has organizations that are supposed to be the voice of reason for the sector. There's never going to be consensus on any issue, that's why we have leadership.

So my question is if the funding is there through outrageous amounts of money spent by recreational anglers and we have leadership representing that sector, why in your opinion does the recreational community continue getting the short end of the stick. In my opinion, it's because fisheries management reports up to the Department of Commerce where the problem starts and the recreational community will always be the redheaded stepchild, unless the funds that are already available are directed to a coordinated and cohesive effort to lobby Washington and change the rules.

If there was legislation on the books that a New Jersey saltwater license as stated in this thread for 500,000 anglers at $20 per license or $10 million in total funding would be used to even the playing field in marine fisheries management, bolster enforcement and have more equitable regulations between sectors, most every saltwater angler in this state would sign up in a heartbeat. From a relative standpoint, I think that would be a much better use of license and excise tax proceeds to bolster recreational sportfishing activities and be given fair and equal representation.

[Broad Bill]

https://shoredailynews.com/headlines/maryland-chesapeake-legal-team-sues-vmrc-for-failing-to-protect-menhanden-in-the-bay/

Look no further. Combine this debacle with the impact of harvesting that many filter feeding menhaden has on increased levels of pollution in Chesapeake Bay and the powers to be will have their answer for the ongoing decline in recruitment and the overall biomass population. Money grab by Virginia or VMRC. And every other Mid-Atlantic state and all recreational anglers and for hire interests suffer the consequences of their greed. Close the bay to all striper fishing for three years and kick Cooke Inc. or Omega Protein out permanently. Bass need protection from the year round pressure they are subjected to and like every fishery the spawn needs to be protected.

[FishingSinceIWasThree]

You can walk on them but we need more cuts. More cuts will lead to more discard mortality which leads to a regulatory death spiral. Meanwhile whiting are still no bag limit, no size limit, and no closed season.


NJ DEP says that there is no Commercial Fishery for Striped Bass at all. We heard that Striped Bass is unedible from PCBs when I was a kid. I guess that "science" was fake? Or is it fake now?

[FishingSinceIWasThree]

"The ASMFC Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board has adopted an emergency measure to reduce recreational striped bass landings. States will have until July 2 to cap their maximum recreational size limit at 31 inches. As a practical matter, that means a 28-31 inch slot everywhere on the coast...The motion passed by an overwhelming vote of 15-1...Only New Jersey opposed the measure."

Not sure if I'm missing anything but why does this post only have a "Like" button but no "Dislike" button? Why don't the other posts have any "Like" or "Dislike" buttons?